GENIUS FORUMS

...

Did you read this thread before posting?

...

xerox wrote:Only the parts that attempted to answer the opening question. The bits without question marks on the end. Certainly not the tricky tangents. Much self refuting redundancy to navigate. Intensely concerted and contrivedly interesting evasion of wisdom.

Slap me.

Well, that sounds much better than a mere 'yes' which you seem to have replaced with.

I truly believe you do have a right to your opinion though... but it matters me not.

Kick me.

BTW... No matter, never mind.

...

Xerox,

Interesting to see how the mind responds when a mirror is held up to it. Most common responses are intellectual dishonesties (statements veiled by question marks), gamey deflection and wordy subterfuge. All major obstacles to truth, reality and enlightenment.

So how about some genuine questions? I do know some questions are genuine inquire, some act as thought provoking instruments, then there are the rhetorical ones, and some are essentially answers in the form of questions that don’t require an answer, which I think you don't like.

You see, your participation somehow makes me ask you to explain at least your last sentence above. Can I ask, will you oblige? At least it does suggest that you believe in truth, reality and enlightenment, so please explain what they are to begin with.

Respectfully, it matters you not, enough to reply in kind.

Accepted; but in no way does that mean that I would disrespect your thoughts though.

We are playing the essential game of philosophical rhetoric... evasion of wisdom in favour of ego.

Hummm… again, would like to know your version of wisdom and ego…

ps. its an internet forum and we all be talking to ourselves via the illusion of virtual discourse.

You can leave the illusion part for later I guess.

...

xerox,

ok, l'll bite.

Please… please… don’t think that I am throwing you a bait or something. I assure you that I am quite sincere with my questioning, and curious to know other minds; and I believe that that can be done only through inquiring, questioning. I do see that you must have though quite deeply on these matters, so I take the liberty of questioning, for the simple reason that it may expand our individual understandings and experiences.

By way of preamble, 'the l, me, mine' perspective that seems to accompany discussions about truth/reality/enlightenment, strike me as irrelevant and self indulgent. Personal contextualisation of a speaker bears no significance on what they say.

To begin with, in a sense I see no difference between what one says and what he is, because there is only one mind expressing its self. I can understand when one says my [whatever], but I find it quite absurd when one says “my mind”, which is actually a mistake, for it is the mind itself saying so. When I think, it is the cognitive process (mind) that identifies its self as not bing something or someone else. The "I" of the mind and mind is one and the same thing.

A is A, because A is A. Who says it, how they say it, what motivates them, are all redundant. Whilst its interesting to discover why the sun is in the sky and what makes it what it is, that in no way impacts on my basking in its warmth. In fact, doing so, obfuscates its truth by getting bogged down in the obsessively curious tendency of the mind.

True, I mean it doesn’t make any difference when basking in its warmth, but that is exactly what A=A is saying, or is in fact confirming it cognitively. It is not what I say it is, or how I say, but the fact is that I cannot even feel if I’m not aware through A=A, which according to me is, recognition through differentiation. If I was not made able to differentiate between what warmth is against what it is not, (A=A), then I wouldn’t be able to even feel any thing at all. It is simply the understanding of the basic principle that any sort of awareness works on. The other guy on the beach enjoys that warmth just as much as me or may be even more, but the difference is only in the personal perspective towards existence; with which perspective do I look at it, that’s all.

I find that questions, within the realm of personal, psychological and philosphical interaction to be almost universally and uniquely evasionary. For some, as yet unknown reasoning, it bothers me. Possibly because it tends to get in the way, striking me as something of a deliberate, if not unconscious, obstacle to truth.

I can understand that. At times it is quite irritating to see every question answered with a question; I guess it may be ones false-ego, false pride at play, on the other hand it may really be an answer in some rare occasions. However, there really is no other way to move forward except through asking meaningful questions, especially to ones self.

This goes to my own judgemental arrogance, which l understand to be a primary obstacle to enlightenment. Simply stated, its projection.

As long as one judges with a clear mind without any emotional biasness or on the bases of preconceived ideas and beliefs, I wouldn’t call it arrogance. Projection is a different story, which may be we can discuss later.

X: Interesting to see how the mind responds when a mirror is held up to it. Most common responses are intellectual dishonesties (statements veiled by question marks), gamey deflection and wordy subterfuge. All major obstacles to truth, reality and enlightenment.

S: You see, your participation somehow makes me ask you to explain at least your last sentence above

X: dont really know how to explain that last sentence, other than the mind does not like to see what it does not like to see, becoming especially defensive and resentful when another imposes a glimpse of itself by holding up a mirror. Its easier to point out the failings of others, than confront thy own.

I agree, and it is much harder to accept ones weaknesses consciously. Other wise honest people, lie to themselves more often than to others, without even realizing it. However, my point was that since you find obstacles to truth, reality and enlightenment, you must have some idea what they mean to you. I personally look for truth in the sense that you kind of seek, and I find that the words reality and enlightenment are inappropriate, or at least used inappropriately, to what they primarily should be achieving, and that is clarity of mind. Those words are more of a hindrance or obstacles because they carry a huge baggage of preconceived thoughts through pre-described ideas by others. I simply prefer to know the truth, and was never interested in “enlightenment” as such, because according to me, it is but a self-satisfying trophy that one thinks has, or can attain, whereas I think it should be no more than a shift or change in perspective.

Wisdom is acceptance of the self evident... the truth. Every so often someone can state in a few words an obvious truth.

Sure, but the self-evident and obvious needs to be deciphered logically, at least I believe so, because I look for a certain level of certainty in what seems obvious. Once one comes around a full circle after doubting the obvious, a sense of certainty arises, and then things are certainly A=A, not just because I say so, or think so.

This is what l see as the essence of a practical or working philosophy, as opposed to the theoretical version, which obfuscates by arguementative theoretical babblings.

I think you must have done a lot of mental-babbling to arrive at this. I believe thinking itself is “philosophizing”, it is a pity that we think it is limited to certain “isms”.

Cannot elucidate it clearly, but on some level it appears that the rhetorical to-and-fro is a neat little trick to avoid truth while pretending to pursue it. Procrastination by constant questions, answering questions with questions, spinning wheels, going nowhere. To the point of analysis paralysis.

You don’t have to necessarily ask anyone any questions. Simply question (or think) yourself, about what ever interests you, or that which mentally troubles you. After all, existence is open to all, and so must have been to the one who must have first claimed enlightenment. To whom must have he asked questions about reality or enlightenment?!

Ego is self. The 'l, me, mine' stuff, which seems to cloud truth/reality/enlightenment.

Yes, ego IS self, but why do you think that clouds any thing at all? As if one can get rid of it by even realizing or “achieving” absolutely any thing at all. I would first question truth, reality AND enlightenment to begin with, rather than think that such things have any authenticity simply because I am told so.

There seems to be a commonly held view that this stuff must be addressed and resolved before enlightenment is possible. Maybe its possible to side step a quagmire, find an alternate path, rather than wade through it. Surely there is a better way than trying to ride through quick sand on and exercise bike. Maybe thats my delusion.

In my opinion I think that the easier way would be to keep the thought of “attaining” enlightenment aside, and think about what could be undoubtedly true.

Hopefully, this forum will help in that regard.

May be, but why do you think you need help? Think for yourself, and I suggest that YOU question others and point out inconsistencies in their thinking as you see fit. Ultimately, it is only you who can help yourself. Self-confidence, mate, self-confidence!

Hi Sapius,

This is interesting because I have just had two lucid dreams within a few nights of one another. I know that I'm taking the thread on a tangent but I'm curious to know other people's experiences with these types of dreams. I'll describe them before responding to your post.

In the first dream I became aware that I was dreaming whilst I was in a room with two men, one of whom was originally a woman. I was so excited to realise that I was dreaming that I immediately forgot my prescribed checklist and exclaimed to the two men: "Hey, I'm dreaming - are you dreaming too?!" They were a little puzzled and less than enthusiastic but they agreed that indeed they were dreaming. I asked them to provide me with some details so that I could contact them when I woke up to confirm that we had had a shared dream, but they were unable to provide me with phone numbers (I forgot to ask for an email address). They best that they could do was to assert that they lived in Nigeria (Nicaragua?) in a city named Tehran. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but neither Nigeria nor Nicaragua has a city called Tehran - that city is the capital of Iran, a country that I had watched a documentary on a few days before, which, unfortunately, might explain its reference and blow out of the water my hope of a shared dream. And again, given that I'm unable to recall the country that they claimed to live in, I wonder how well I'd be able to recall any specific details such as phone number/email address had they been able to provide it... in other words: phooey to my hopes of being able to prove shared lucid dreams. I did, however, manage to ascertain that I can talk to people in dreams however I had not yet read your advice (as quoted below) that "listen"ing is simply hearing "muffled thoughts", so I will have to check this more carefully the next time that I have a lucid dream.

In the second dream I became aware that I was dreaming whilst walking down a street after (unconsciously participating in) watching women sew dresses for a semi-formal ball. Again, I forgot my checklist (hmm, a bit more discipline is required I believe) but realised that I might be able to fly and tested this hypothesis by jumping up off the ground. Indeed, I lifted off into space and was fortunate enough that I was passing by a shop window at the time. I saw myself reflected in the window - arms and legs adrift as I floated in space. This was quite a remarkable feeling however it did not, unfortunately, contribute to my planned scientific investigation of lucid dreams.

To your comments:

Sapius wrote:In my experience colour is around thirty percent of the time, and the first or the third person perspective should be immediately reflected upon once awake, after a while this alertness becomes a norm, and in a third person perspective one is immediately aware that it is a dream.

Well I'm trying to be aware of it but can't yet confirm the same for me. I need to experience more lucid dreams where I confirm the shading before I can agree with you. In my lucid dreams it is *always* (as far as I can recall - and dreams are tricky in that way) first person, although in normal "unconscious" dreams I have had experiences with third-person perspective.

Sapius wrote:No need to pinch yourself, it does not really work actually. Let me know if it does.

As I said, I've had two opportunities but have as-yet failed to capitalise on them. I will let you know the results if I get another opportunity to pinch myself in a dream.

Laird: Next is to try to speak and to see whether I can hear myself and whether I sound normal.

Sapius: Just like the pinch, the sound thing also does not always work. Most of the time one does not even actually “listen” to someone speak, but simply “hears” muffled thoughts in a sense, and the mind fills in the rest. Try remembering the actual words spoken by someone you think is speaking in the dream. You should experience that no words are actually spoken. The mind does the “speaking” for all, and you can’t actually ‘speak’ to any one, especially from the third perspective.

Interesting - something to experiment with if I get the chance. I'll try to remember to actually listen physically for the words, not just recognise them.

Laird: Then I want to check to see whether I am breathing as usual, and if so, whether I can simply stop without discomfort.

Sapius: I think you better first master being fully aware of the difference between the first and the third person perspectives. Once a third person perspective, which is relatively easy to spot, is mastered, then try mastering being aware of the first person perspective while dreaming, which is much more difficult.

I shall pay more attention to that - it seems a little redundant because a lucid dream feels very similar to being awake, so I kind of take these things (i.e. being in first-person perspective) for granted, but as I wrote above, I am very certain that my lucid dreams actually do come from a first-person perspective: that I am walking around in a different world as "me".

Sapius wrote:Awareness of logical inconsistencies should be your guide to be "awake" in a first person perspective dream. At times, these perspectives keep interchanging within a single dream, and that too can be good indicators.

Yes, like I said, in the first dream that I described above, one of the men was originally a woman - a glaring logical inconsistency if ever there was one. And Tehran in Nigeria/Nicaragua? That seems like another logical inconsistency. And not being able to provide me with phone numbers? I suppose if they were living in a very poor country they might not have had phone numbers. But these inconsistencies are beside the point - I already knew that I was dreaming so I had no need to test for inconsistencies to prove it.

Laird: Is there anything else that you would recommend I experiment with?

Sapius: I don’t know any particular method, or what might work for you, but a single-minded clear focus is essential in my opinion, and a really open mind, of course; but don't experiment with drugs :D

Well my drugs of addiction at present are (still) alcohol and caffeine, but I'm not straying into anything heavier. What I'm most curious about though is how to enter the lucid state to begin with. I have many, many dreams every night, but so few of them ever result in me becoming conscious that I'm dreaming. I *do* say to myself that I have certain goals that I want to achieve if I enter a lucid dream, but perhaps I am not single-minded enough about them - as you can see I have failed to accomplish them in the two dreams that I have had recently. But what else might I try? Are there any particular foods; any ways of thinking; any songs; any movies that can help me to enter the lucid dreaming state?

Just determine to remain conscious and not be fooled by dreams. Make a habit of this by thinking about it all day and as you fall asleep at night and I have no doubt that you can have lucid dreams every night if you want.

Thanks for that advice Matt - it seems similar to what Sapius has been saying. Can you share any of your own experiences with lucid dreams?

Laird,

I know that I'm taking the thread on a tangent but I'm curious to know other people's experiences with these types of dreams.

Hey! This is your thread, take it where you like, and I think we have discussed each topic quite separately even if within a post, so no worries.

In other words: phooey to my hopes of being able to prove shared lucid dreams.

Lucid dreams are dreams however, not an OBE, or some other mind visiting you.

Again, I forgot my checklist (hmm, a bit more discipline is required I believe) but realised that I might be able to fly and tested this hypothesis by jumping up off the ground. Indeed, I lifted off into space and…

I know, but tell me; was it a first person perspective (FPP) or a third person perspective (TPP)? It seems it was a FPP since you say you saw your reflection, but it could be a TPP too. Are you sure it was a FPP?

Now if it was a FPP, then most probably you were looking out from the “eye socket perspective”; I mean with the limitation we feel when moving the eyes all around without moving the head. Can you remember that? If not, try doing that the next time, and of course remember it.

Well I'm trying to be aware of it but can't yet confirm the same for me. I need to experience more lucid dreams where I confirm the shading before I can agree with you.

Pay attention, that’s all I’m saying, and that you can do if you simply observe and remember rather than try waking up from the dream.

In my lucid dreams it is *always* (as far as I can recall - and dreams are tricky in that way) first person, although in normal "unconscious" dreams I have had experiences with third-person perspective.

If you know that they were TPP, then you are already a step closer, because generally one remembers that it was a dream I saw, not the perspective I saw it from. Generally we do not remember or notice the TPP exactly, and assume it was or always is a FPP, because one wakes up thinking that it was “I” who was dreaming, although it might be that he saw himself in the dream from a TPP, but does not really remember that. Or remembers it after the dream, not within. A TPP should immediately tell one that he is dreaming, for he can recognizably see himself from a third person perspective. Hence it is easier to spot and be aware that it is indeed a dream.

If one is aware of the TPP within a dream, his mentality changes. He then, when experienced many times, remains simply a passive observer with a mental-smile so to speak; and is able to recollect the whole dream when awake because he was able to pay attention to the dream, knowing that it is a dream, without bothering of pinching or talking to anyone.

As I said, I've had two opportunities but have as-yet failed to capitalise on them. I will let you know the results if I get another opportunity to pinch myself in a dream.

Why exactly do you want to pinch yourself? To wake up? Tell someone else to throw a bucket of ice cold water instead :D

Interesting - something to experiment with if I get the chance. I'll try to remember to actually listen physically for the words, not just recognise them.

Also remember, in a TPP, the characters, including yourself, do not notice “you” however close or in their line of vision you are, so interaction is not really possible from that perspective.

I shall pay more attention to that - it seems a little redundant because a lucid dream feels very similar to being awake, so I kind of take these things (i.e. being in first-person perspective) for granted, but as I wrote above, I am very certain that my lucid dreams actually do come from a first-person perspective: that I am walking around in a different world as "me".

I already knew that I was dreaming so I had no need to test for inconsistencies to prove it.

But still, keep paying attention to them, and then you will consciously refrain from asking logically inconsistent questions.


It seems you’ve taken up this research quite seriously, eh! :D

Laird wrote:Thanks for that advice Matt - it seems similar to what Sapius has been saying. Can you share any of your own experiences with lucid dreams?

One time I tried to make a rock appear in my dream but it didn't work. I don't like lucid dreaming because it usually wakes me up when I realize I'm sleeping.

Matt Gregory wrote:I don't like lucid dreaming because it usually wakes me up when I realize I'm sleeping.

The same thing happens with me - I get about 60 seconds to play in the dream before I start to wake up. I'm experimenting with using force of will to stay in the dream. Speaking of which, with the advice of yourself and Sapius ringing in my ears, I managed to conjure up another lucid dream last night - it was the last dream of the night. Before I went to bed I focussed on my list of things to check if (when) I started lucid dreaming, and each time that I woke up during the night I did the same thing. Eventually I was rewarded.

So it turns out that the old saying is true: pinch yourself to know whether you're dreaming. I gripped the skin on top of my hand between my index finger and my thumb and squeezed hard, even digging in my nails, but felt barely a thing and certainly no pain - I was numb. Item #1 checked off. Item #2 was to try to speak and to see whether I sound normal, so I said "Hi" to a passing stranger. My voice came out barely audible. I need to do more testing here because there have been occasions in past lucid dreams where I've been able to talk normally - I also need to check Sapius' assertion that in dreams we don't actually hear physical voices, we just think we do. Item #3 was to check whether I was breathing normally and if so whether I could stop. I was by this point jogging down some carpeted stairs (I don't know why, but as soon as I realised that I was dreaming I started walking away from the ballroom that I was in) and I took in a deep breath, then breathed it out. I tried to stop but it was as in real life: the pressure to continue breathing eventually became unbearable. I can't, however, be sure that I didn't only start breathing because I'd decided to pay attention to it. I can't think of any way to prove that when I'm not aware of it within my lucid dreams, I'm still breathing, short of having a shared dream where someone else observes me. Has anyone here ever had a shared dream before? If not, do you believe that they're possible? Anyone got any ideas on how to get one to happen?

Sapius, I also checked for perspective - it was definitely first-person perspective and I again caught sight of my reflection in a window - and for shading - it was definitely in colour. Perhaps black-and-white third-person-perspective dreams are less an experience of mine than of yours.

To Sapius' post:

Sapius wrote:Lucid dreams are dreams however, not an OBE, or some other mind visiting you.

I'm trying to keep an open mind on what exactly dreams are in the first place. They're very strange things.

Sapius wrote:Are you sure it was a FPP?

As sure as I can be without going back there and rechecking.

Sapius wrote:Now if it was a FPP, then most probably you were looking out from the “eye socket perspective”; I mean with the limitation we feel when moving the eyes all around without moving the head. Can you remember that?

Yes, well that's exactly what it seemed to be when I saw my reflection in the mirror and that was the general feel that I got.

Sapius wrote:Why exactly do you want to pinch yourself? To wake up?

To test the saying that you feel no pain when you pinch yourself in a dream.

Sapius wrote:It seems you’ve taken up this research quite seriously, eh! :D

Yes, it fascinates me!

Laird wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:I don't like lucid dreaming because it usually wakes me up when I realize I'm sleeping.

The same thing happens with me - I get about 60 seconds to play in the dream before I start to wake up. I'm experimenting with using force of will to stay in the dream.

I think the force of will is what kills it because I'll start trying to actively think and that's what wakes me up.

Speaking of which, with the advice of yourself and Sapius ringing in my ears, I managed to conjure up another lucid dream last night

Awesome! I love it when something I say turns out to be right :)

So it turns out that the old saying is true: pinch yourself to know whether you're dreaming. I gripped the skin on top of my hand between my index finger and my thumb and squeezed hard, even digging in my nails, but felt barely a thing and certainly no pain - I was numb.

Heh that made me laugh for some reason.

Has anyone here ever had a shared dream before? If not, do you believe that they're possible?

I don't believe it's possible. I've given up on believing anything without sufficient evidence.

My last suspicions of being psychic would happen when something weird comes to my mind, something totally off-the-wall that there's no reason for me to think of, and then something appears in reality related to it. Like if I suddenly get a weird song stuck in my head for no reason and then hear it on the radio the next day, then it would make me wonder if I was psychic or something. But I think these things just happen through common causes. Like maybe some journalist was listening to that song and they write a headline that has some vague reference to it. Then I and a radio DJ read the headline and we both absorb the reference. Then later through subconscious processing, the mind relates the reference to the song and brings the song to mind in both me and the DJ, which causes both of us to think of the song. So, that's how something weird like that could be explained through ordinary physical causality.

Not to mention, what would "shared dream" really mean? That's kind of like a shared thought. I'm sharing my thoughts with you, but is the thought you read the same as my thought or different?

Matt Gregory wrote:I think the force of will is what kills it because I'll start trying to actively think and that's what wakes me up.

Interesting idea - that it's the act of thinking that leads to wakefulness. That suggests that most of our dreams are unconscious so that we might obtain rest. I wonder - if one were able to enter the lucid state for all dreaming activity whether one would lose proper rest.

Laird: Speaking of which, with the advice of yourself and Sapius ringing in my ears, I managed to conjure up another lucid dream last night

Matt: Awesome! I love it when something I say turns out to be right :)

Even more right given that on each of the two consecutive nights I've also had one lucid dream per night. In neither of them did I have the presence of mind to run through my checklist but in the first I tried again (unsuccessfully) to retrieve contact details from another of the dream's participants and in the second... well, let's just say that it would raise eyebrows for me to give details of how it ended.

Laird: Has anyone here ever had a shared dream before? If not, do you believe that they're possible?

Matt: I don't believe it's possible. I've given up on believing anything without sufficient evidence.

Well I don't have any evidence but in a thread on another board someone referenced the website of Ian Moss, on an interview page whose exact url I've forgotten where he wrote that he had planned and participated in shared dreams with specific partners of his. Now I don't know how trustworthy the guy is but it's an intriguing possibility to me and one that I'd like to explore.

Matt Gregory wrote:But I think these things just happen through common causes.

Would your common causes explanation apply to the situation that was discussed earlier in this thread - that of seeing (and learning) a new word for the first time and then suddenly seeing it multiple times in a short space of days after that?

Matt Gregory wrote:Not to mention, what would "shared dream" really mean?

A shared dream would mean that the reality in which all participants were present was identical for each of them in the same way that we interact in a shared physical world. It would imply that (some?) dreams are not merely a product of a person's mind but are accessing a different plane of reality, or perhaps that (some?) dreams are the product of multiple minds cooperating together.

Matt Gregory wrote:That's kind of like a shared thought. I'm sharing my thoughts with you, but is the thought you read the same as my thought or different?

There's the thought-as-a-process-of-conceptualisation as it exists in your head, and one as it exists in my head. Then there is the abstract idea of that thought-process where the abstract idea of the thought exists in an abstract reality much like the abstract reality in which exist the solutions to equations. Whether a single abstract thought can be said to be the basis of the instantiated actual thoughts in our two separate minds is debatable, but no doubt they are at least very closely related.

I don't think, though, that shared thoughts are a valid comparison for shared dreams - in the sense of a shared dream a shared thought would mean that there would be one common and not two separate "thought-as-a-process-of-conceptualisation"s occurring in our two minds.

Laird,

Matt: I think the force of will is what kills it because I'll start trying to actively think and that's what wakes me up.

Laird: Interesting idea - that it's the act of thinking that leads to wakefulness.

I don't think the act of thinking leads to all wakefulness because you can be awake without any conscious effort.

But I had an interesting thought today: the act of thinking is actually the cause of change in the mind, or changes in the mind cause active thinking. Let me explain. You have a checklist of tasks that you want to perform in your lucid dreams, and in order to remember them, you would have to make a conscious effort and that might wake you up. So, the solution that I would propose would be to consciously create a habit of thinking of the checklist so that you could think of it without making any conscious effort. It's based on the same principle as consciously entering into a lucid dream. You just have to think of the fact that you're dreaming at the right moment and you'll start having a lucid dream. If the thought of lucid dreaming pops up in your mind all the time, then the odds of it popping up when your dreaming are greatly enhanced.

But, lucid dreaming aside, I think it's interesting to think of the mind as having particular patterns that it falls into, certain thoughts that arise over and over again in your mind, and the effort that it takes to break out of those patterns. You can't break out of them without exercising the will. But sometimes your patterns are broken without your will. I think that's what emotions are: when the body causes the mind to break out of its usual habits. I think enlightenment is the ability for the mind to adapt to changing conditions without the emotional experience of being forced out of your patterns, because the patterns no longer exist in an enlightened person. The enlightenment part comes in because if you have no thought habits then your mind is no longer averse to truth, so it can more easily become conscious of it. The mind no longer passively falls into habits, but is active all the time. Truth can be thought of as the lack of thought patterns, the everchanging flow of Reality.

That suggests that most of our dreams are unconscious so that we might obtain rest. I wonder - if one were able to enter the lucid state for all dreaming activity whether one would lose proper rest.

I think you could probably learn to remain half-conscious so you remain asleep and still accomplish things by creating thought habits beforehand.

Matt Gregory wrote:So, the solution that I would propose would be to consciously create a habit of thinking of the checklist so that you could think of it without making any conscious effort.

I think I know what you mean, and it's a good idea. There's just one problem: if I'm *unconsciously* performing tasks in my dream, then I lose the lucidity of the dream. The whole idea of a lucid dream is that you're aware that you're dreaming, which requires consciousness.

I had another lucid dream last night after a few days' break and I tried to meditate in my dream. I was able to meditate, but as I did so I slowly lost consciousness that I was dreaming and it returned to a normal dream, although thankfully I was able to avoid waking up using this technique. I want to explore this a little more because ideally meditation is a highly conscious state and my theory is that if I perfect the art of meditating-within-a-lucid-dream I'll be able to stay there indefinitely, or at least until I wake up normally.

Matt Gregory wrote:Truth can be thought of as the lack of thought patterns, the everchanging flow of Reality.

Yes, I've seen other people describe the truth of enlightenment as an absence of cognition - a here-and-now-ness.

Matt Gregory wrote:I think you could probably learn to remain half-conscious so you remain asleep and still accomplish things by creating thought habits beforehand.

I've considered this too, and the main thing that holds me back is the discipline of inculcating those thought patterns into myself whilst awake. I don't know if I'm *that* keen on this experiment to put all of that constant waking effort in.

Laird,

Matt: Truth can be thought of as the lack of thought patterns, the everchanging flow of Reality.

Laird: Yes, I've seen other people describe the truth of enlightenment as an absence of cognition - a here-and-now-ness.

Well, the absence of Pavlovian mental activity that most people experience every moment of their lives. Most people's thoughts are merely passive, automatic reactions to things in the environment. They're not reasoned out and understood, even if on the surface their thoughts appear as if they are. Most people just psittacinely adopt the thoughts that make them feel good without trying to find rational support for them. I suppose they just assume that such support exists or maybe, most likely, they just don't care, as long as it feels good.