Some Questions of Trevor

[Trevor Salyzyn]

unwise,

A person has a dream and the next day something happens exactly as in the dream. How is this understood by causality?

I've had experiences like this before, but I had a creative causal explanation. Basically, it involves two facts:

1) human behaviour (including their influence on others) is largely unconscious
2) humans are able to influence others through their goals (like a son trying to fulfill a father's egotistical wishes, but it also occurs all the time)

Basically, dreams are a close link to the unconscious, and so in a small community where people are constantly influencing each other, it is possible to be told what someone has unconsciously planned for you for tomorrow. So when the event comes to pass, it is no surprise, and takes on a deeper significance.

I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but it is a possible explanation that doesn't assume acausality.

For instance, an 'effect' can transpire before its 'cause.' Or, two particles separated by millions of light years can act in sympathy with each other. It is not known how or what could 'cause' the effect since light can only travel so fast. The two particles are in communication, but it is impossible in our world of causality.

These might still be examples of causality (even anticausality is technically causality) in the philosophic sense of "no event happens without a cause".

One-to-one causality breaks down. In fact, causality is only a principle of the gross material world. It is NOT universal as preached here. It does NOT apply to the quantum world

The causality talked about here tends to be incredibly abstract to the point where it wouldn't make much sense to a scientist.

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia wrote:

DQ: Do you honestly believe that a fully-awakened Buddha is unaware that he is awake?

K: For a start, the phrase "fully awakened Buddha" is redundant.

Not at all. The word "Buddha" can be used in different ways, and often is.

For example, it can be used to denote the person who has awakened to his true nature, but still falls short of being able to maintain this conscious realization indefinitely. In other words, he has awakened, but due to still-existing subtle attachments which can take a long time to remove, he cannot yet keep himself awake permanently. He still falls into periods of being half-asleep or semi-awake, as it were.

A perfect Buddha, by contrast, has succeeded in eliminating every shred of delusion inside him, including the subtle, instinctive, hard-to-lodge ones, and is now fully-awakened on a permanent basis.

In the case above, I deliberately used the term 'fully-awakened Buddha" to emphasize that he is indeed fully awake, which includes being fully awake to the knowledge that he is fully awake.

You continue to post non-sequitors.
We were talking about "claiming enlightenment status", not being aware of being awake.

Being aware that one is awake *is* a form of claiming enlightenment status, at least to oneself.

Regardless of the fact that you're talking about self consciousness, there is no doubt, that there is no such thing as being aware of being awakened. It's a silly egocentric notion.

The idea that a Buddha is unaware that he is awake is ridiculous. To be fully-awake and yet somehow remain ignorant of one's awakened state is a flat contradiction.

I have the impression that you are regurgitating other people's ideas without really understanding them. Your ideas are depressingly uninspired and familiar. Your "wisdom", such that it is, seems to come from popular books on Buddhism, or some two-bit guru.

DQ: All that is true. However, the brain/body organism which is capable of realizing that the self is an illusion is also capable of realizing the significance of this realization.

In other words, the enlightened brain is awake to its selfless nature. Not only is it enlightened, but it knows that it is enlightened. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

K: Your "realizing that the self is an illusion" is intellectual.

Of course. How could it not be? Realization is always intellectual nature, as well as experiential. Although the intellectual component by no means comprises the whole of spiritual realization, without it spiritual realization cannot arise at all.

In essence, realization (of one's true nature) occurs when one's mind is suddenly no longer spell-bound by the core delusion of existence - namely, the belief that things inherently exist. The dispelling of this core delusion is an intellectual act and therefore the movement into enlightenment is an intellectual act.

By "intellectual", I don't mean the sterile, pedantic, cowardly doodling of the academic. Rather, I mean the passionate inward striving of someone who desperately desires to understand what is ultimately true.

Aside from the enlightenment foolishness, you're talking about the brain being aware of absence. That's a thought process, nothing more.

It's far more than that. Being aware that one's self is an illusion, that one's true nature is utterly beyond life and death, is a tremendous intellectual/experiential realization which has countless ramifications. It completely changes one's perspective, values, goals, habits, and ways of thought. It open up the means for the elimination of all irrationality and suffering. It is the key to unlocking the door to nirvana. Nothing could be more important.

-

[David Quinn]

Unwise wrote:

A person has a dream and the next day something happens exactly as in the dream. How is this understood by causality?

Rather easily.

It is essentially a statistical phenomenon. British studies have been shown that the average person will have a prophetic dream, by sheer coincidence and chance, around 4 times during their lifetime. Some people will experience more of these dreams, and sometimes more vividly, than this average figure, while others will experience fewer.

This should be no surprise, really. Given the sheer volume of dreams that we experience each night, it is all but guaranteed that occasionally a dream of ours will happen to resemble an event which occurs the next day.

Also, there are many phenomena within the quantum world of experimentation that are a-causal. For instance, an 'effect' can transpire before its 'cause.' Or, two particles separated by millions of light years can act in sympathy with each other. It is not known how or what could 'cause' the effect since light can only travel so fast. The two particles are in communication, but it is impossible in our world of causality.

The two particles could easily be causally connected via a higher dimension.

For example, imagine that you are a flatlander living in a 2-dimensional world and, unbeknown to you, a 3-dimensional two-pronged fork descends downwards to your world and halts just as it intersects it. From your point of view, two small objects have suddenly appeared in the world in a most mysterious manner, with seemingly no connection between them. From the outsider's point of view, a fork has intersected the flatlander's world in the usual causal fashion.

One approach to this scenario is to imagine that these objects have no causal connection between them, that synchronicity and acausality at work, that it must be an expression of magic, and so on. Another approach is to take the principle of causality into consideration and actually create a model which begins to resemble the truth.

The Heisenberg Uncertain Principle could also be a case of this. That is, quantum events are only understood in terms of probability. It is no longer possible to understand or follow a chain of events in the quantum world. One-to-one causality breaks down.

You are confusing matters. The only thing that breaks down in the quantum realm is our ability to directly follow the chain of events - nothing more. Causality still happens down there in the same manner that it happens everywhere else. It is only our tools of perception which are limited.

In fact, causality is only a principle of the gross material world. It is NOT universal as preached here. It does NOT apply to the quantum world

Only a fellow with a very poor understanding of causality could possibly believe this. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

If causality didn't operate in the quantum realm, the equations of quantum mechanics wouldn't be able to operate at all. We wouldn't be able to predict anything in the quantum realm, not even statistically. It would be completely unmanageable.

Moreover, the particles that we are familiar with - e.g. electrons, protons, bosons, neutrinos, etc - would have virtually no chance of reoccurring. They certainly wouldn't be constantly reoccurring, as they are now. Instead, we would be observing zillions of unique, unprecedented forms springing into being willy-nilly, without rhyme and reason. Science would break down completely in the face of this.

The quantum realm might behave differently from the macro-world, but it is still an ordered realm, which means that it still functions by way of causality.

-

[unwise]

If we want to say that causality is not necessarily one to one, then, yes, we can say causality exists in the quantum world. That is, if we can say that 'y is the most likely result of x,' but that x may also be the cause of p and t' - then we can define causality in those terms.

What is most interesting to me is the introduction of the observer to be the cause of a quantum event. Or I should say the cause of the effect. -Or that which guides a cause into a particular path of outcome. That is very interesting.

This is the basis for magic, of course. --That intention and observation has influence over the world. It also clearly goes along with my first principle: - that everything springs from psychological states - types of consciousness. The 'order' or lack thereof in the outer world is merely a reflection of the 'order' within the mind.

The macro 'wakeful' world is more stable than the dream world, but it, too, begins to break down under very close scrutiny. At that level it is no longer possible to say anything of exactness in describing any of it. The dream has some sort of order to it, but it breaks down to be only an 'appearance of order' under inspection. This is the same as any dream you have at night. You see a yellow balloon in a dream - now trace down where the balloon came from and what it is made of. This will take alll night in the dream world to do and your journey will be more and more convoluted, complex and puzzling. Meanwhile you miss the most important part - you are dreaming.

[Bo]

who have concluded that they are enlightened and found them all to be mistaken.
-

As one of my friends says, the ego is subtle.

If someone thinks they are enlightened, they've probably just lost it.

From the Venerable and highly respected Ajahn Chah:

If your mind tries to tell you it has already attained the level of sotapanna, go and bow to a sotapanna. He'll tell you himself it's all uncertain. If you meet a sakadagami, go and pay respects to him. When he sees you, he'll simply say, "Not a sure thing!" If there's an anagami, go and bow to him. He'll tell you only one thing. "Uncertain!" If you meet even an arahant, go and bow to him. He'll tell you even more firmly, "It's all even more uncertain!" You'll hear the words of the Noble Ones: "Everything is uncertain. Don't cling to anything!"

I think it's a subtle thing - and it is an easy trap to fall into - many manifestations of ego - the identity view is not an easy one to see.

[Bo]

Or as kowtaaia says aptly - 'what is it that claims enlightenment status'.

I'd defer to the Venerable Ajahn anyday also.

[Bo]

In other words, the enlightened brain is awake to its selfless nature. Not only is it enlightened, but it knows that it is enlightened. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

-

Hi David

I'm curious

1/ So you think it is the brain that becomes awake?

2/ How does the brain become so-called enlightened and how does it know it is?

Thanks,
Bo

[Bo]

We were talking about "claiming enlightenment status", not being aware of being awake. Regardless of the fact that you're talking about self consciousness, there is no doubt, that there is no such thing as being aware of being awakened. It's a silly egocentric notion.

Hi 'kowtaaia'

I have always assumed one whom is awake/attentive recognises this.

[kowtaaia]

kowtaaia wrote:

DQ: Do you honestly believe that a fully-awakened Buddha is unaware that he is awake?

K: For a start, the phrase "fully awakened Buddha" is redundant.

Not at all. The word "Buddha" can be used in different ways, and often is.

For example, it can be used to denote the person who has awakened to his true nature, but still falls short of being able to maintain this conscious realization indefinitely. In other words, he has awakened, but due to still-existing subtle attachments which can take a long time to remove, he cannot yet keep himself awake permanently. He still falls into periods of being half-asleep or semi-awake, as it were.

A perfect Buddha, by contrast, has succeeded in eliminating every shred of delusion inside him, including the subtle, instinctive, hard-to-lodge ones, and is now fully-awakened on a permanent basis.

In the case above, I deliberately used the term 'fully-awakened Buddha" to emphasize that he is indeed fully awake, which includes being fully awake to the knowledge that he is fully awake.

You don't know what you're talking about. 'Buddha' is a title that denotes perfect enlightenment. Study up!

You continue to post non-sequitors.
We were talking about "claiming enlightenment status", not being aware of being awake.

Being aware that one is awake *is* a form of claiming enlightenment status, at least to oneself.

Nonsense!

Regardless of the fact that you're talking about self consciousness, there is no doubt, that there is no such thing as being aware of being awakened. It's a silly egocentric notion.

The idea that a Buddha is unaware that he is awake is ridiculous. To be fully-awake and yet somehow remain ignorant of one's awakened state is a flat contradiction.

I have the impression that you are regurgitating other people's ideas without really understanding them. Your ideas are depressingly uninspired and familiar. Your "wisdom", such that it is, seems to come from popular books on Buddhism, or some two-bit guru.

In both of the above paragraphs, you are projecting you own limitations. Perhaps you'd like to put your money where your mouth and give reference for this "come from popular books on Buddhism, or some two-bit guru", that you speak of. Put up, or shut up.

DQ: All that is true. However, the brain/body organism which is capable of realizing that the self is an illusion is also capable of realizing the significance of this realization.

In other words, the enlightened brain is awake to its selfless nature. Not only is it enlightened, but it knows that it is enlightened. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

K: Your "realizing that the self is an illusion" is intellectual.

Of course. How could it not be? Realization is always intellectual nature, as well as experiential. Although the intellectual component by no means comprises the whole of spiritual realization, without it spiritual realization cannot arise at all.

In essence, realization (of one's true nature) occurs when one's mind is suddenly no longer spell-bound by the core delusion of existence - namely, the belief that things inherently exist. The dispelling of this core delusion is an intellectual act and therefore the movement into enlightenment is an intellectual act.

By "intellectual", I don't mean the sterile, pedantic, cowardly doodling of the academic. Rather, I mean the passionate inward striving of someone who desperately desires to understand what is ultimately true.

The 'inner' is the illusion!

Aside from the enlightenment foolishness, you're talking about the brain being aware of absence. That's a thought process, nothing more.

It's far more than that. Being aware that one's self is an illusion, that one's true nature is utterly beyond life and death, is a tremendous intellectual/experiential realization which has countless ramifications. It completely changes one's perspective, values, goals, habits, and ways of thought. It open up the means for the elimination of all irrationality and suffering. It is the key to unlocking the door to nirvana. Nothing could be more important. -

Whose true nature?

[kowtaaia]

Hi 'kowtaaia'

I have always assumed one whom is awake/attentive recognises this.

Hi Bo,

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me. :)

[Iolaus]

Hello Unwise,

The 'wakeful world' and the 'dream world' are only different in their degree of stability.

I had pretty much come to the same conclusion, but I had consciousness on a continuum, with waking reality more real than dreams, due to that very stability. Or to what do you attribute the stability of waking reality?

Another thing is that one person can be dreaming a lot while awake, and another is hardly dreaming at all. Meaning, that some people, say a very neurotic one, is superimposing upon and interacting with their waking reality in such a way that much of it is imaginary. The only real thing about their experience, is the physical matter. But a more aware person doesn't do that.

If you read some of the recorded studies of 'synchronicity,' you will find examples of a-causal activity. The paranormal world is full of similar examples. A person has a dream and the next day something happens exactly as in the dream. How is this understood by causality?

I don't see why synchronicity should lack a cause. Some speculate that it has to do with vibrational compatibility in the realms of subtle energy. As for prophecy, there seems to be a way outside of linear time. How do you view it?

Also, there are many phenomena within the quantum world of experimentation that are a-causal. For instance, an 'effect' can transpire before its 'cause.' Or, two particles separated by millions of light years can act in sympathy with each other. It is not known how or what could 'cause' the effect since light can only travel so fast. The two particles are in communication, but it is impossible in our world of causality.

Light is not the fastest way to travel. There is an etheric field that fills the universe. Check out Ervin Lazslo. If you do not think there are scientific explanations for such things, then to what do you attribute them?

The Heisenberg Uncertain Principle could also be a case of this. That is, quantum events are only understood in terms of probability. It is no longer possible to understand or follow a chain of events in the quantum world. One-to-one causality breaks down. In fact, causality is only a principle of the gross material world. It is NOT universal as preached here. It does NOT apply to the quantum world

We don't know enough about how the quantum world operates yet to make definitive statements about it. It may very well have different rules of causality and time. It's my opinion that the quantum world, perhaps divided at Planck length, is already the next smaller dimension.

[unwise]

Hello Birdy! I've missed talking with you. Hope you are well. Your post is, as usual, far above the riff raft and causes me to sharpen my pen and focus. Usually, just a few snide remarks and generalizations is all that is required. hehe

So let's see here....

Or to what do you attribute the stability of waking reality?

The waking world is karma. It is the accumulation of all of your entire karma. This forms the waking reality to the ego. The dream world is a more fluid state of wishes, wonderings, fears, desires, questions, self analysis. It is a state which reflects upon the ego and its karmic situation. Thus, it is fleeting and unwieldy.

Meaning, that some people, say a very neurotic one, is superimposing upon and interacting with their waking reality in such a way that much of it is imaginary. The only real thing about their experience, is the physical matter. But a more aware person doesn't do that.

Everyone is experiencing their karma. Most karma is very similar, as most people are similar. They are 'average.' And so the world is basically seen and experienced in the same way. Karma can also be a nightmare. Or, an experience of one great blessing after another.

A perfectly sane person could be visited by aliens or ghosts at night. Some people talk to themselves walking down the sidewalk - trapped in their own hell world. It is the same as a disease. Siddhis, magicians, gurus or enlightened people experience various levels of control over the material world. Again, karma. In the presence of a master, the world can begin to look rather fluid and unreal - even to a bystander. I once knew a guru who approached an apple tree and said, "I'm hungry" and the entire tree dropped all of its fruit. Some people think such stories are crazy; the world is very flexible. The world seems more flexible to me than it might to most people.

I don't see why synchronicity should lack a cause. Some speculate that it has to do with vibrational compatibility in the realms of subtle energy. As for prophecy, there seems to be a way outside of linear time. How do you view it?

Actually, snychronicity DOES have a cause. It is simply a psychological one. Like I say, the world proceeds from inside the ego to the outside 'reality.' This also explains prophecy and other paranormal states...

Since 'reality' is being projected based on psychological states, it is not even odd that things can be pre-seen or that synchronicity occurs, or that entities, gods, demons or objects appear or disappear. You see, if it all comes from the mind, then what is impossible? What is it limited to or restricted by? What can't you dream up?

Light is not the fastest way to travel. There is an etheric field that fills the universe. Check out Ervin Lazslo. If you do not think there are scientific explanations for such things, then to what do you attribute them?

Since 'nature' is a reflection of the psyche, it has different levels and features. The course, gross feature is everyday reality. Billiard ball and going to work stuff which is a reflection of the logical, empirical brain. This is where most of us live all the time. It is also the area this site is dedicated to as a shrine.

The paranormal and quantum worlds are are very similar. At least the quantum world is predictable. But they are subtle and changing states, hard to describe in logical, empirical terms. They are reflections of the subconscious with its symbolism, uncontrollable drives, vast powers, contradictions....just think of the family man preacher who is driven by a hidden craving for young boys. He is contradicted (as the psyche always is to some extent). The human psyche is full of contradiction. This is seen in the outer world as paradox, absurdity and mystery.

I like your etheric field idea. As the psyche approaches the Cosmic Self, there is the appearance of total connectiveness in all things. This is simply a reflection of the most basic of all facts: There is only one Self. Everything must be the same object - a reflection of the one being.

We don't know enough about how the quantum world operates yet to make definitive statements about it.

I have news for you. Come back in a billion years and there will still be LOTS of questions about the micro AND macro worlds. Just think on the macro scale what is happening there....dark matter, dark energy - the entire universe expanding rapidly into WHAT???? Who knows? Why? It makes no sense.

So, it will ALWAYS be too early to make definitive statements about the natural world as we really try to comprehend it's totality. Why? Because god cannot comprehend himself. Even the Buddha falls deeper and deeper into the Void. Never able to comprehend his own infinity. In the deep comprehension/being of the Cosmic Self there is not even a peep. Not even a word or concept to express. The entire world is god's endless attempt to comprehend and interact with himself.

[Bo]

Hi 'kowtaaia'

I have always assumed one whom is awake/attentive recognises this.

Hi Bo,

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me. :)

Dear kow

*laughs*

Well we all start with assumptions. I'll refrain from belief though - will check it out if possible

Metta.

[Iolaus]

Hello Birdy! I've missed talking with you.

Well who did you used to be? and where can I find my old friend Naturyl? I must say, the old format was easier to deal with. Now, when you post a reply, all you get is a tiny window.

The waking world is karma.

That was all well and good, but it doesn't seem quite adequate to give that much responsibility to we humans. I agree we influence our personal reality a lot with the content of our thoughts and unconscious, but what mind is responsible for the material world? Last summer my niece was telling a little girl to try to envision the rain stopping so they could go swim. But I was thinking about all the many other entities that probably wanted the rain, and the whole cycle of physical causes already set in motion. I'm not saying a powerful person can't influence the weather, but most people can't, and if a whole bunch of apple-dropping gurus got together and had a weather contest, in teams, what would happen then?

[Iolaus]

By the way, I tried to come back as BirdofHermes, but there was some glitch. Said the name was already taken. No shit.

[unwise]

I'm not saying a powerful person can't influence the weather, but most people can't, and if a whole bunch of apple-dropping gurus got together and had a weather contest, in teams, what would happen then?

haha. You make me smile. Nemo here.

Imagine when you first experience enlightenment and you suddenly realize that you are ALONE in the entire universe!

Yes, the entire world is streaming out of your ego. Just the same exactly as your dreaming. When you dream you see a world, cities, animals, people you converse with. You hear music, see orchestras, technology, go to work, have problems, feel pain....

Where does this world come from?

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia wrote:

DQ: Do you honestly believe that a fully-awakened Buddha is unaware that he is awake?

K: For a start, the phrase "fully awakened Buddha" is redundant.

DQ: Not at all. The word "Buddha" can be used in different ways, and often is.

For example, it can be used to denote the person who has awakened to his true nature, but still falls short of being able to maintain this conscious realization indefinitely. In other words, he has awakened, but due to still-existing subtle attachments which can take a long time to remove, he cannot yet keep himself awake permanently. He still falls into periods of being half-asleep or semi-awake, as it were.

A perfect Buddha, by contrast, has succeeded in eliminating every shred of delusion inside him, including the subtle, instinctive, hard-to-lodge ones, and is now fully-awakened on a permanent basis.

In the case above, I deliberately used the term 'fully-awakened Buddha" to emphasize that he is indeed fully awake, which includes being fully awake to the knowledge that he is fully awake.

K: You don't know what you're talking about. 'Buddha' is a title that denotes perfect enlightenment. Study up!

Traditionally, the term "Buddha" can refer to a bodhisattva, or even to an arhat. It doesn't just refer to a perfect being.

There has probably never been a perfect Buddha in all of history. It is a very lofty attainment, after all - maybe too lofty for the human race. Siddhartha Gautama was more likely to have been a bodhisattva, as imperfections can be detected in his behaviour - assuming, of course, that the depictions of his life and teachings can be believed.

Being a bodhsiattva is still a great achievement, and in many ways it does resemble Buddhahood, but it is still a long way short of perfection.

In any case, words don't have fixed meaning. We are free to make them mean whatever we want them to mean. We don't have to be a slave to tradition. Let's leave that to those who don't have any real understanding.

K: We were talking about "claiming enlightenment status", not being aware of being awake.

DQ: Being aware that one is awake *is* a form of claiming enlightenment status, at least to oneself.

K: Nonsense!

This isn't a meaningful response. You should try support your assertions with some reasoning or evidence, otherwise they won't have any meaning.

To repeat, recognizing that one is awake/enlightened is a case of recognizing that one is awake/enlightenment. It is a recognition that enlightenment has been attained.

That is why when the Buddha attained enlightened under the bodhi tree, he recognized this and stated, "I have attained supreme, unexcelled enlightenment".

DQ: I have the impression that you are regurgitating other people's ideas without really understanding them. Your ideas are depressingly uninspired and familiar. Your "wisdom", such that it is, seems to come from popular books on Buddhism, or some two-bit guru.

K: In both of the above paragraphs, you are projecting you own limitations. Perhaps you'd like to put your money where your mouth and give reference for this "come from popular books on Buddhism, or some two-bit guru", that you speak of. Put up, or shut up.

Every comment you make reveals a lack of wisdom. All you do is repeat the common, populist, exoteric view of Buddhism that can be found in any New Age city bookstore. You don't seem to have thought about these issues in any substantial manner. Your glib, pseudo-Zennish answers may fool some people, but they don't conceal the very real deficiencies in your understanding.

K: Aside from the enlightenment foolishness, you're talking about the brain being aware of absence. That's a thought process, nothing more.

DQ: It's far more than that. Being aware that one's self is an illusion, that one's true nature is utterly beyond life and death, is a tremendous intellectual/experiential realization which has countless ramifications. It completely changes one's perspective, values, goals, habits, and ways of thought. It open up the means for the elimination of all irrationality and suffering. It is the key to unlocking the door to nirvana. Nothing could be more important. -

K: Whose true nature?

The universe's.

-

[David Quinn]

Unwise wrote:

I once knew a guru who approached an apple tree and said, "I'm hungry" and the entire tree dropped all of its fruit. Some people think such stories are crazy; the world is very flexible. The world seems more flexible to me than it might to most people.

Let's see a demonstration of this. For example, let's see you or your guru-mate fix up some of the environmental problems in the world. If it is no big deal to wish a tree to drop all of its apples, then it shouldn't be a big deal to, say, suck some of the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. What say you?

-

[Iolaus]

'lo Neems!

Imagine when you first experience enlightenment and you suddenly realize that you are ALONE in the entire universe!

I don't know about enlightement, but it happened to me once on shrooms!

Where does this world come from?

Yeah, that's what I'm asking.

My point about the guru teams, is that there are billions of entities, all having their cacophany of wants and thoughts. Something more powerful is running this place.

[unwise]

But you're not understanding. Where can your dream world come from but your own mind? This is also the source of the waking world. You are dreaming up everyone you see. You are dreaming me. You are dreaming up apple-dropping gurus who only exist in your mind. You are dreaming up global warming that only exists in your own dream world. You are alone. Seeing lots of people and thinking that they all have their own souls is the definition of delusion.

[Carl G]

By the way, I tried to come back as BirdofHermes, but there was some glitch. Said the name was already taken. No shit.

Memberlist says you are registered as "birdofhermes." You can find yourself by going to memberlist and sorting by username/ ascending (Alphabetical starting w/ A, page 2). Can you remember your password?

[Carl G]

But you're not understanding. Where can your dream world come from but your own mind? This is also the source of the waking world. You are dreaming up everyone you see. You are dreaming me. You are dreaming up apple-dropping gurus who only exist in your mind. You are dreaming up global warming that only exists in your own dream world. You are alone. Seeing lots of people and thinking that they all have their own souls is the definition of delusion.

This is fine and dandy, but there are other dreamworlds, and we are each interacting with numbers of those (all of them ultimately, by the ripple effect).

What, you think you are the Totality?

[unwise]

If you think there are others, you are in delusion.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

How is there only one self? I can't see the necessity (although simultaneously I can't see the necessity in the existence of others).

[Carl G]

If you think there are others, you are in delusion.

There are other parts to the whole. There are parts other than this localized coglomoration of impressions and sensory apparatus I call "me". You disagree?

If so, are you not saying you are indeed the Totality?