The Nature of God and the Many Layers of Truth

[pianoperformer]

Thread split from: Everything Works Out Perfectly

Originally Posted by Maguru

Are you pointing to god?

You can call it that if you like. I don't see god as personal, though. As in the other thread, I consider it to be Love.

But yes, something beyond my limited, individual self.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

You can call it that if you like. I don't see god as personal, though. As in the other thread, I consider it to be Love.

But yes, something beyond my limited, individual self.

What about the god in the 'messages from Jesus thread'?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

What about the god in the 'messages from Jesus thread'?

There are many layers of truth. They were written from a dualistic perspective so as to reach many people. I am writing now from a mostly non-dualistic perspective, though my original post was slightly dualistic. My book, for instance, is a bit of both.

Does a personal God exist? If you need one to from a dualistic perspective.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

There are many layers of truth. They were written from a dualistic perspective so as to reach many people. I am writing now from a mostly non-dualistic perspective, though my original post was slightly dualistic. My book, for instance, is a bit of both.

Does a personal God exist? If you need one to from a dualistic perspective.

This really surprises me. I though you were a devout christian from that thread. What happened?

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Does a personal God exist? If you need one to from a dualistic perspective.

I've found that I can no longer experience a personal god. I actually miss it. It's been quite some time now, and I still occasionally have visions or dreams with symbolic deity-figure types, but on a day-to-day basis, there is no personal god. I suspect that in order to "believe in" (whatever that means in this context) a personal god, one has to "believe in" a personal self, and that's something that's gone from me now, too. (And no, I don't miss that belief. There is still this perspective, and it exists as it is. That it isn't a discrete, disconnected, bounded "person" is of no consequence at all.)

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

I've found that I can no longer experience a personal god. I actually miss it. It's been quite some time now, and I still occasionally have visions or dreams with symbolic deity-figure types, but on a day-to-day basis, there is no personal god. I suspect that in order to "believe in" (whatever that means in this context) a personal god, one has to "believe in" a personal self, and that's something that's gone from me now, too. (And no, I don't miss that belief. There is still this perspective, and it exists as it is. That it isn't a discrete, disconnected, bounded "person" is of no consequence at all.)

And yet you are still a part of the intricate tapestry.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

This really surprises me. I though you were a devout christian from that thread. What happened?

Nope; I did not consider myself Christian when channeling those messages, either. Jesus has revealed to me repeatedly that my path has a lot to do with his message, but that in no way means that it is Christian. I see Christianity as a completely separate entity from Jesus. I see my message, if I dare risk overstating it, as what Jesus would be saying if he were here today.

But no, I was firmly in the non-dualist camp as I posted those messages.

Here is the difference: I believe that truth has many layers. On one layer, there is a personal God who is our father, and there is good and evil. But that's only one level that only has relevance for a certain part of the spiritual path. On another level, there is no personal God, because God is all and all is a manifestation of God.

However, if I'm speaking to a Christian, I will use Christian terminology if that's what works best for them. If I think they're open enough, or they specifically ask me to be completely open and unfiltered about my beliefs, then I'll speak in non-dualistic terms. It depends on the person. In my experience, speaking to a person on non-dualism/subjective reality, this world being a dream, etc, before they are ready, only makes them depressed and confused. It can be quite dangerous to their spirituality, so I follow my intuition on the matter.

It is important for my work. Through Christ's Light Ministries, I regularly work with Christians, new-age people, Hindus, etc, so I have to change lenses/perspectives rather easily. People have commented that they like that I am able to do that, because it meets them where they are, which is what I think God does.

So in these forums, I might easily talk about spirit guides, angels, demons, etc, while in another thread I talk about subjective reality and that such things really don't exist. I'm not conflicting with myself, in my view, but just expressing various layers of truth. There is truth and there is Truth.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

I've found that I can no longer experience a personal god. I actually miss it. It's been quite some time now, and I still occasionally have visions or dreams with symbolic deity-figure types, but on a day-to-day basis, there is no personal god. I suspect that in order to "believe in" (whatever that means in this context) a personal god, one has to "believe in" a personal self, and that's something that's gone from me now, too. (And no, I don't miss that belief. There is still this perspective, and it exists as it is. That it isn't a discrete, disconnected, bounded "person" is of no consequence at all.)

What need have you for a personal God? You are a perfect manifestation of Love in the universe.

Sometimes I still use the language of a personal God, even in prayer, just because it is easier at times. To whom do you pray if there is no personal God? I will at times say, "Please help me, God," and similar things to that, but it's just a symbol for me. I go back and forth without any difficulty.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Nope; I did not consider myself Christian when channeling those messages, either. Jesus has revealed to me repeatedly that my path has a lot to do with his message, but that in no way means that it is Christian. I see Christianity as a completely separate entity from Jesus. I see my message, if I dare risk overstating it, as what Jesus would be saying if he were here today.

But no, I was firmly in the non-dualist camp as I posted those messages.

Here is the difference: I believe that truth has many layers. On one layer, there is a personal God who is our father, and there is good and evil. But that's only one level that only has relevance for a certain part of the spiritual path. On another level, there is no personal God, because God is all and all is a manifestation of God.

However, if I'm speaking to a Christian, I will use Christian terminology if that's what works best for them. If I think they're open enough, or they specifically ask me to be completely open and unfiltered about my beliefs, then I'll speak in non-dualistic terms. It depends on the person. In my experience, speaking to a person on non-dualism/subjective reality, this world being a dream, etc, before they are ready, only makes them depressed and confused. It can be quite dangerous to their spirituality, so I follow my intuition on the matter.

It is important for my work. Through Christ's Light Ministries, I regularly work with Christians, new-age people, Hindus, etc, so I have to change lenses/perspectives rather easily. People have commented that they like that I am able to do that, because it meets them where they are, which is what I think God does.

I see. So god does exist on a personal level, but on another level god exists as Love. Why does god split himself into two?

So in these forums, I might easily talk about spirit guides, angels, demons, etc, while in another thread I talk about subjective reality and that such things really don't exist. I'm not conflicting with myself, in my view, but just expressing various layers of truth. There is truth and there is Truth.

Ministering to everyone?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I see. So god does exist on a personal level, but on another level god exists as Love. Why does god split himself into two?

Ultimately, no, I do not believe that God exists personally. But to the mind who believes in concepts, God does exist personally, as a separate being watching over everyone. In the dream, this is true, or can be true for people who need that. Obviously it's not true for atheists. In my book, I call it a useful lie—something that helps us to escape the trap of illusion, but still is not quite true. Forgiveness is another one of those useful lies: in reality, there is no one to forgive, but in the dream, it helps us to heal imagined hurts.

Originally Posted by Maguru

Ministering to everyone?

In whatever way I'm called to.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Ultimately, no, I do not believe that God exists personally. But to the mind who believes in concepts, God does exist personally, as a separate being watching over everyone

You don't believe God has consciousness?

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Maguru

And yet you are still a part of the intricate tapestry.

Yes.... and simultaneously removed from it, and simultaneously nothing at all, and simultaneously aware that the whole tapestry is nothing (and everything).

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

What need have you for a personal God?

I liked the company.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Sometimes I still use the language of a personal God, even in prayer, just because it is easier at times.

Yes, I do, too. But it feels hollow most of the time. I feel like I'm talking to myself, which I know I am. When there was separation and God was "out there" and so forth, there was the impression of an actual conversation, and I had that from a very young age.

I don't "need" it. I just liked it, and I miss it, that's all. I feel the same way about Coca-Cola (which I never drink any more for various health reasons).

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

To whom do you pray if there is no personal God?

Well, there it is. I just pray "in general" now. It still works. Maybe even works better, in fact. But it's not the same. I experience my reality as an extension of my thoughts, my emotions, etc. It not longer seems to be "out there", because there is no "out there" or "in here".

It's just nostalgia for the days when I could have conversations with God and not just with myself (and by "myself" I mean the One conversing with the One; I'm just one tiny perspective in the whole of it).

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I will at times say, "Please help me, God," and similar things to that, but it's just a symbol for me

Me, too. I still find myself talking to "God". I just know it's the equivalent of me talking to my monitor buddy (i.e., the Beanie Baby that has been on my computer monitor or desk for some twenty years or so as my constant companion). It can help to talk to a monitor buddy, actually, because it helps you sort out what you're working on and what you're thinking about, etc. But you know you're just talking to yourself.

Which is not to say I don't experience God, because I certainly do. It's just not "personal" any more.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by VinceG

You don't believe God has consciousness?

I don't want to derail the thread with discussion of my beliefs on God, but in short, I don't believe God has a separate existence apart from me and you and everything else.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Ultimately, no, I do not believe that God exists personally. But to the mind who believes in concepts, God does exist personally, as a separate being watching over everyone. In the dream, this is true, or can be true for people who need that. Obviously it's not true for atheists. In my book, I call it a useful lie—something that helps us to escape the trap of illusion, but still is not quite true. Forgiveness is another one of those useful lies: in reality, there is no one to forgive, but in the dream, it helps us to heal imagined hurts.

I'm surprised again at your use of a 'useful lie'. It isn't the truth of what you believe. Doesn't sound like Jesus' teachings at all to me.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I'm surprised again at your use of a 'useful lie'. It isn't the truth of what you believe. Doesn't sound like Jesus' teachings at all to me.

Could you clarify for me? What is it you are surprised about? What seems to be opposed to Jesus' teachings?

Let's say you are dreaming. In the dream, certain things are true that are not true in your waking existence. In reality they are not true, but to you in the dream, no one could really tell you that these things weren't true, because it is something you have experienced and that you believe. When you wake up, you'll laugh and know it was all a dream.

If you're Christian, then your reality says that there is a personal God who punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous, or those who believe in Jesus as personal savior. As a result, your world and everything in it will validate those beliefs, because that is truth in that subset of reality.

If you're Hindu, you'll believe in many gods and goddesses, or in one overarching existence (Brahman), depending on the sect. You'll believe that Śiva/Vishnu/Kali is supreme. You will believe that your soul goes through a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, and that actions you have performed will be returned to you through karma. Your world and everything in it will validate your beliefs, because they are your subset of reality.

If I'm talking to you as Christian, I will validate the perspective of a personal Father God. If I did not, it would be too jarring that you wouldn't even listen to me, seeing me as bad/evil. The only way I could reach you is by entering your dream and playing by its rules.

Same is true if you are Hindu. If I don't accept your perspective as your truth, you'll reject whatever I am trying to show you.

So what do I believe? It depends on the person I'm speaking to. Sometimes I even have useful lies, praying to a personal God when I know I'm just talking to nothing. It's just something for my mind to do.

I believe nothing, because any belief is essentially a concept, and all concepts cannot capture truth. Sure I have some useful beliefs that I regularly accept just for the mind to have something to hang onto, but I know that truth goes beyond these. In the dream I believe in reincarnation, but in truth I know there can be no such thing as an individual soul, because separation can't exist.

In Hinduism they have something called a swami, which is just basically a holy man. In their view, swamis have no gender and have no religion — they even lose their given name and personal contacts. This is so because they are no longer a person, an individual self. They represent truth, reality, oneness, and in that there can be no religion, no gender, and no name to specify one person from another. The rite to become a swami is essentially the funeral rite, because the individual person is dying.

That's how I try to see myself, though occasionally I still cling onto some beliefs that have been useful for me. There are layers of truth, and I am shedding layers. However, I am the religion of the person I am talking to, because I have to fit into their dream. Myself, as I say in the "Be Love" thread, I am Love.

I am tempted to split this thread since so many seem to be interested in my personal beliefs, lol.

Edit: Thread split. Discuss on.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The only way I could reach you is by entering your dream and playing by its rules.

What a great post. I tried to rep you but, alas, I can't rep you again just yet...

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

What a great post. I tried to rep you but, alas, I can't rep you again just yet...

Aww, thanks.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Could you clarify for me? What is it you are surprised about? What seems to be opposed to Jesus' teachings?

Let's say you are dreaming. In the dream, certain things are true that are not true in your waking existence. In reality they are not true, but to you in the dream, no one could really tell you that these things weren't true, because it is something you have experienced and that you believe. When you wake up, you'll laugh and know it was all a dream.

If you're Christian, then your reality says that there is a personal God who punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous, or those who believe in Jesus as personal savior. As a result, your world and everything in it will validate those beliefs, because that is truth in that subset of reality.

If you're Hindu, you'll believe in many gods and goddesses, or in one overarching existence (Brahman), depending on the sect. You'll believe that Śiva/Vishnu/Kali is supreme. You will believe that your soul goes through a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, and that actions you have performed will be returned to you through karma. Your world and everything in it will validate your beliefs, because they are your subset of reality.

If I'm talking to you as Christian, I will validate the perspective of a personal Father God. If I did not, it would be too jarring that you wouldn't even listen to me, seeing me as bad/evil. The only way I could reach you is by entering your dream and playing by its rules.

Same is true if you are Hindu. If I don't accept your perspective as your truth, you'll reject whatever I am trying to show you.

So what do I believe? It depends on the person I'm speaking to. Sometimes I even have useful lies, praying to a personal God when I know I'm just talking to nothing. It's just something for my mind to do.

I believe nothing, because any belief is essentially a concept, and all concepts cannot capture truth. Sure I have some useful beliefs that I regularly accept just for the mind to have something to hang onto, but I know that truth goes beyond these. In the dream I believe in reincarnation, but in truth I know there can be no such thing as an individual soul, because separation can't exist.

In Hinduism they have something called a swami, which is just basically a holy man. In their view, swamis have no gender and have no religion — they even lose their given name and personal contacts. This is so because they are no longer a person, an individual self. They represent truth, reality, oneness, and in that there can be no religion, no gender, and no name to specify one person from another. The rite to become a swami is essentially the funeral rite, because the individual person is dying.

That's how I try to see myself, though occasionally I still cling onto some beliefs that have been useful for me. There are layers of truth, and I am shedding layers. However, I am the religion of the person I am talking to, because I have to fit into their dream.

And they obviously fit into your dream and telling useful lies is part of it. Is that what love does? Did Jesus not correct false beliefs or did he let them believe a lie?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

And they obviously fit into your dream and telling useful lies is part of it.

Heck, i use useful lies myself when my mind needs something to do. Sometimes I mistaken them for reality, but that's becoming less and less frequent.

It seems you're getting caught up on the word "lie." It's a pretty abrupt word, but I mean it to be that way, and that's why I use the term. It's not that we're telling lies, but just playing by the rulebook of someone else's reality so as to show them the way out of it and into perfect Love. Just because it is their rulebook doesn't mean it is mine, but I will acknowledge their truth for them.

A possible truth is that God exists. Another possible truth is that God does not exist. The absolute truth is beyond both of these, but both of these can be useful lies to the people who believe each of them.

Originally Posted by Maguru

Is that what love does? Did Jesus not correct false beliefs or did he let them believe a lie?

He used parables with the people who were unready for absolute truth. Those parables played a similar role — gently entering into a person's reality without completely shattering it. With his disciples, who specifically asked him for absolute truth, he was frank with them.

With the people I work with, I will play in their reality. If they specifically ask me to be open and share what I see the truth to really be, I will share that. sometimes they get scared and we go back to playing in dreams, but sometimes we forge onward and they learn something. either way is OK, and I have no preference.

Another way to look at it is this: if you are in the depths of a nightmare, it may be too much to completely wake up. The nightmare is your life and to completely lose everything you thought you knew is traumatizing. So we slowly change the rules of the nightmare, and gradually it becomes a less scary nightmare, and then a more pleasant dream. We are still dreaming, but at least it is a pleasant one.

Eventually, however, we do need to wake up, but by this point we have begun to see the illusory nature of the rules. If we can change them so easily, then surely we can just completely drop them. Then we can begin to lucid dream (i.e., be awake while still living in the world), and then we completely wake up and enjoy life.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Another way to look at it is this: if you are in the depths of a nightmare, it may be too much to completely wake up. The nightmare is your life and to completely lose everything you thought you knew is traumatizing. So we slowly change the rules of the nightmare, and gradually it becomes a less scary nightmare, and then a more pleasant dream. We are still dreaming, but at least it is a pleasant one.

That was my experience, actually.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Eventually, however, we do need to wake up, but by this point we have begun to see the illusory nature of the rules. If we can change them so easily, then surely we can just completely drop them. Then we can begin to lucid dream (i.e., be awake while still living in the world), and then we completely wake up and enjoy life.

Yes, that, exactly. That's exactly how it unfolded from this perspective (i.e., in my experience). Although I do seem to fluctuate between dreaming, lucid dreaming, and apparently awake (I say "apparently" because one can never be sure of these things; I think I've read one too many Philip K. Dick novels ).

Sometimes my focus is very much in the "first person" perspective, and sometimes it's quite transcendent. Usually, it's somewhere in the middle (what we might call lucid dreaming; I know I'm dreaming, but I'm acting within the dream). I am never unaware that all this is a dream, however, no matter how much I may focus on being "me" and "living my life". Something like how you never forget you're actually in a movie theatre, no matter how engrossing the movie is. You momentarily lose acute awareness of the physical surroundings of the theatre, but you never really forget where you actually are and you can switch focus as needed.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Heck, i use useful lies myself when my mind needs something to do. Sometimes I mistaken them for reality, but that's becoming less and less frequent.

It seems you're getting caught up on the word "lie." It's a pretty abrupt word, but I mean it to be that way, and that's why I use the term. It's not that we're telling lies, but just playing by the rulebook of someone else's reality so as to show them the way out of it and into perfect Love. Just because it is their rulebook doesn't mean it is mine, but I will acknowledge their truth for them.

A possible truth is that God exists. Another possible truth is that God does not exist. The absolute truth is beyond both of these, but both of these can be useful lies to the people who believe each of them.



He used parables with the people who were unready for absolute truth. Those parables played a similar role — gently entering into a person's reality without completely shattering it. With his disciples, who specifically asked him for absolute truth, he was frank with them.

With the people I work with, I will play in their reality. If they specifically ask me to be open and share what I see the truth to really be, I will share that. sometimes they get scared and we go back to playing in dreams, but sometimes we forge onward and they learn something. either way is OK, and I have no preference.

Another way to look at it is this: if you are in the depths of a nightmare, it may be too much to completely wake up. The nightmare is your life and to completely lose everything you thought you knew is traumatizing. So we slowly change the rules of the nightmare, and gradually it becomes a less scary nightmare, and then a more pleasant dream. We are still dreaming, but at least it is a pleasant one.

Eventually, however, we do need to wake up, but by this point we have begun to see the illusory nature of the rules. If we can change them so easily, then surely we can just completely drop them. Then we can begin to lucid dream (i.e., be awake while still living in the world), and then we completely wake up and enjoy life.

I do understand where you are coming from. I have a different dream entirely and who am I to interrupt yours?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Yes, that, exactly. That's exactly how it unfolded from this perspective (i.e., in my experience). Although I do seem to fluctuate between dreaming, lucid dreaming, and apparently awake (I say "apparently" because one can never be sure of these things; I think I've read one too many Philip K. Dick novels ).

Sometimes my focus is very much in the "first person" perspective, and sometimes it's quite transcendent. Usually, it's somewhere in the middle (what we might call lucid dreaming; I know I'm dreaming, but I'm acting within the dream). I am never unaware that all this is a dream, however, no matter how much I may focus on being "me" and "living my life". Something like how you never forget you're actually in a movie theatre, no matter how engrossing the movie is. You momentarily lose acute awareness of the physical surroundings of the theatre, but you never really forget where you actually are and you can switch focus as needed.

This is my experience, too. I fluctuate along the spectrum of awareness. I am more aware more often now, but it goes back and forth.

When I say lucid dream, I mean being awake but still being aware of the world here. When you completely wake up, that is dropping all pretenses of separation and reuniting with the One. That would be after the death of your final dream character.

But I do think that once we are lucid, so to speak, we turn from being a character in the dream, where things just happen to us beyond our control, to being the creator of the dream. We can just enjoy it for what it is — we can enjoy our own creations, even though they aren't real. It's like playing a game that is completely in our control, and not really caring about the outcome. Does the dream ever really end, or do we just go from being a character to the director?

Until then, there are moments of lucidity, as you report, and those moments increase over time so that we are mostly lucid with periods of non-lucidity.

Lately I've been pretty lucid, recognizing it is a dream, and that I am not the "I". My experiment in the thread "Be Love" is really helping me with that. If I am Love, then Brandon is just a character among many characters.

The other day i was walking back to my apartment. I remember that on the way back, i was mesmerized by everything going on around me. it was like the raw sensory inputs were impressed upon me without my interpretation, and they were fascinating. All of nature around me was beautiful, and to speak was as a sacrilege in such a holy place. All I could do was observe.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

When I say lucid dream, I mean being awake but still being aware of the world here. When you completely wake up, that is dropping all pretenses of separation and reuniting with the One. That would be after the death of your final dream character.

Would it? Or would you drop it, and then put it on (ill fitting though it may be) because the story hasn't ended yet for whatever reason? I don't think someone literally dies when they awaken, so, yet, here they are. Unless you choose never to interact with the dream reality again, you have to have some sort of "costume" to wear within it. That may as well be the character you shed.

I've heard people who say they are truly and fully awakened, and I just always wonder, how are they interacting with the dream, then, if they're no longer dreaming at all?

See what I mean?

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

But I do think that once we are lucid, so to speak, we turn from being a character in the dream, where things just happen to us beyond our control, to being the creator of the dream. We can just enjoy it for what it is — we can enjoy our own creations, even though they aren't real. It's like playing a game that is completely in our control, and not really caring about the outcome. Does the dream ever really end, or do we just go from being a character to the director?

Yes, exactly. That's what I'm getting at. I think. (Hard to put these things into concepts and words; material language doesn't lend itself well to that.)

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Lately I've been pretty lucid, recognizing it is a dream, and that I am not the "I". My experiment in the thread "Be Love" is really helping me with that. If I am Love, then Brandon is just a character among many characters.

Yes, I've experimented with that, too. I've played at being Mother Goddess (yes, really, why not?) and various other archetypical figures. It's interesting, to say the least. Though I do always know for sure that this self, this person, is just a character. I can't think of her in any other way, not any more. The whole idea of a separate, discrete being is no longer something that can be entertained (though I can play at it when appropriate).

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The other day i was walking back to my apartment. I remember that on the way back, i was mesmerized by everything going on around me. it was like the raw sensory inputs were impressed upon me without my interpretation, and they were fascinating. All of nature around me was beautiful, and to speak was as a sacrilege in such a holy place. All I could do was observe.

I've done that. I love it. I can sometimes do it on purpose, just by choosing to see things that way. It's an amazing way to view reality.

One thing I do find, which kind of defies description, is that more and more, I see and experience simultaneous layers or levels of reality, and I can see and experience simultaneous points of view. Hard to describe, but anyone with that kind of experience of reality will know exactly what I'm talking about.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Would it? Or would you drop it, and then put it on (ill fitting though it may be) because the story hasn't ended yet for whatever reason? I don't think someone literally dies when they awaken, so, yet, here they are. Unless you choose never to interact with the dream reality again, you have to have some sort of "costume" to wear within it. That may as well be the character you shed.

I've heard people who say they are truly and fully awakened, and I just always wonder, how are they interacting with the dream, then, if they're no longer dreaming at all?

See what I mean?

Well, in the case of enlightened masters, I mean when they actually shed their physical form and return to Source. I always wondered what happened after that. do they continue in another dream, or is it really all over? I can't imagine.

In Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda's guru (can't spell his name), after he dies, returns apparently to assist in an area of the astral realm. Another dream, though less dense, so I found that was interesting. What about after he helps there?

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Yes, exactly. That's what I'm getting at. I think. (Hard to put these things into concepts and words; material language doesn't lend itself well to that.)

yes, it is hard to imagine the dream just ending, though I'm sure that's a possibility. At the same time, if we are expressions of Love, and that is eternal, then can the expressions really ever end? Who knows.

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Yes, I've experimented with that, too. I've played at being Mother Goddess (yes, really, why not?) and various other archetypical figures. It's interesting, to say the least. Though I do always know for sure that this self, this person, is just a character. I can't think of her in any other way, not any more. The whole idea of a separate, discrete being is no longer something that can be entertained (though I can play at it when appropriate).

I would see that as just pretending to be another character, and I don't know how much benefit that would necessarily have.

When I say being Love, I mean realizing our true nature as true and perfect Love, and embracing that, putting aside the character altogether. It is very powerful for me, anyway. I can't remember if you've participated in the other thread, but it's worth checking out I think.

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

I've done that. I love it. I can sometimes do it on purpose, just by choosing to see things that way. It's an amazing way to view reality.

One thing I do find, which kind of defies description, is that more and more, I see and experience simultaneous layers or levels of reality, and I can see and experience simultaneous points of view. Hard to describe, but anyone with that kind of experience of reality will know exactly what I'm talking about.

That's interesting. i think I might know what you mean.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I would see that as just pretending to be another character, and I don't know how much benefit that would necessarily have.

Well, it's like acting. An actor can come to really think of their character as a person with likes, dislikes, desires, thoughts, emotions, etc. It's similar to that, I guess. It's actually hard to explain, now that I try to do so. But I've always been particularly attuned to symbols and archetypes, so maybe that's why it works for me. (I also cultivated the Mother Goddess thing to overcome and transcend a lot of mother issues; in effect, I became my own mother, but that is very much a trick "within the dream").

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

When I say being Love, I mean realizing our true nature as true and perfect Love, and embracing that, putting aside the character altogether. It is very powerful for me, anyway. I can't remember if you've participated in the other thread, but it's worth checking out I think.

I had a look, and, yes, I've done that. It's like being... I don't know, like shrinking into the background and allowing Love to flow through, like water through a pipe. Very healing, I've found. I should get back to that.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I do understand where you are coming from. I have a different dream entirely and who am I to interrupt yours?

In a way, but it's also just about how best to communicate with others who are in their own dreams. I guess we could call it dream hopping, lol.