lorenzop wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 2:59 am
This question you ask here does not address my point in prior post above. However, to address your question: an analogy - - - A character in a dream is a process of thinking, sensing and perceiving. It would be a misdiagnosis for the dream character to think of itself as an entity, as the thinker. The dream character is not a self, is a localization of the Dreamer.
We do not do the thinking, sensing and perceiving; we are thinking, sensing and perceiving.
-
-Also-
If we grant God with Infinite capacity, if we grant an Agent with Infinite non-ending Will . . . then no finite mind can be spoken of as having a will. Simple geometry/math - an infinite vector overshadows and makes irrelevant any finite vector(s).
Well, what you say, in itself explains why after two years, there's still no notion of what spiritual activity is.
In your view, reality is split into two aspects. Consciousness (1) is seen only as a completely passive visualization of the Dream process (2), constituted by God's Will, the mechanical laws of the Dream, or whatever they may be called.
So the Dreamer, in its localized perspective, with much effort multiplies two numbers and then says "It's an illusion to conceive that I'm doing anything. What I experience is only the visualization of the Dream process. Even these thoughts that I now think, which rationalize the experience, are only a visualization of the Dream process."
The Dreamer has consciousness of the Dream process but that process is in itself
non-consciousness. It lies on the other side of consciousness and the latter only passively visualizes the
activities that happen in the non-consciousness Dream process.
When the Dreamer beholds the experience through the coloring of this ideological lens, the term 'spiritual activity' simply makes no sense. The true nature of 'activity' (whatever makes the dream 'tick') belongs to the non-consciousness aspect of the Dream process. That's where the true causes of the dream flow belong. Any feeling that the Dreamer is consciously active, is only an illusionary visualization raising as smoke from the true activity on the other side of consciousness.
We can only understand what 'spiritual activity' implies if the Dreamer realizes that in its intentional activity, it is
one and the same with the activity (the 'ticking') of the Dream process.
If the Dreamer in your localized perspective desires to feel itself only as a strict spectator of the conscious visualization of the Dream process, that's fine. I'm just trying to explain that as long as this is held as unquestionable dogma, not two, but two thousand years from now, things will be as elusive as ever. Things can only be approached if we at least allow for the possibility that there might be something of the 'ticking',
within conscious experience and not outside of it. To be spiritually active implies realizing that lucid intuitive inner activity is what the 'ticking' of the Dream process
is 'made of'.
I'm not trying to convince you (the Dreamer in your localized perspective) in anything but hopefully next time, instead of saying that our explanations don't make any sense, you can at least object in a more direct way: "I sense where you try to go with this. You try to bring the 'ticking' of the Dream process inside consciousness, make it willful, intuitive activity, which causally steers the Dream process. This is not my cup of tea, though. I prefer to behold conscious experience as pure visualization of the mysterious Dream process. Any attempt to feel as if the Dreamer in us can have any intentional causative role, is an illusion, quest for the golden calf. The Dreamer only has true understanding of its reality if it conceives that whatever makes its experience 'tick' lies on the other side of its conscious existence. I reject the possibility that this other non-consciousness side can be consciously experienced. The conscious Dreamer can only rest blissfully within the maternal embrace of its non-conscious causative source."