Dr. HOFFMAN's mathematical model of the "SELF"

[Cleric K]

a/

Cleric, can you explain it to me what all this is about, please? Let's keep talking here: viewtopic.php?t=967

No, Jon, I won't explain it to you in the other thread, because after your silly game is over, that whole thread and your impostor account will be deleted.

[A shy girl]

a/

Cleric, can you explain it to me what all this is about, please? Let's keep talking here: viewtopic.php?t=967

No, Jon, I won't explain it to you in the other thread, because after your silly game is over, that whole thread and your impostor account will be deleted.

You are silly. Your mom didn't love you? Poor baby.

[lorenzop]

Yes, I am (slowly) getting accustomed to how Arthroscopy uses language. For example, the questions you ask at the end this post - come off largely as pure gobbledygook to me. Arthroscopy doesn't float my boat.

Let's try in the following way.

I'll use the analogy with dreaming and becoming lucid in the dream. As we have explained this many times, spiritual awakening (knowing one's true essence) can be compared to becoming lucid in a dream. However, this lucidity has degrees. For example, we can be stricken by the realization "everything is just a dream" but still without becoming aware that our dream experience, even though somewhat enlightened, is only a more diminished form of consciousness of another level of being (our waking self), from whose perspective the whole dream experience can be comprehended in a way that is inconceivable for the dream persona (as long as it doesn't become lucid for the waking self).

I see the following variants:

a/ you don't yet grasp the gravity of this analogy. When you hear it, it evokes some caricature in your mind and that's why it seems inconsequential. If that is the case and you have some openness that maybe your attitude is based on a erroneous intuition about what all this is about, I guess there could be some value to keep talking.

Any of the variants below would signify that there's no point to keep talking.

b/ you very well understand the analogy but in your experience it is absolutely certain that there's no deeper level of being. You live in the full confidence that as soon as you realized the intuition "it's all just a dream", you were already at the fundamental ground of existence and there's no possibility that this enlightened perspective may still be only a more diminished state of a higher, more lucid level of being.

c/ you understand that there may be a more lucid perspective (and corresponding realm of experience) that presently dreams within your current, but you see it as belonging to a completely separate floor of existence. One that you'll move to only after death. As such, it is completely pointless to even think about that higher perspective at present. Not only that it is pointless, but it is also impossible, because our present and the higher are incompatible (orthogonal) and we're wasting our efforts if we try to awaken in the higher while still in the body.

d/ you admit that it may be possible to bridge the perspectives but still see it as useless because the higher perspective doesn't have anything to do with the dream perspective. As such, trying to glimpse through higher lucidity is nothing but vain and premature curiosity.

e/ you recognize that the more lucid and the dreaming perspective are intrinsically interrelated but you simply don't feel like making effort to allow the higher to awaken. You would rather try your luck and see how things turn out.

f/ anything that is not captured by the above?

So a one letter reply will suffice. If it is anything other than a/, I won't bother you with more attempts to elucidate these matters.

If we put the analogy aside for a moment, and simply equated lucid dreaming with a 'being present in the world as one's true nature', aware that using any analogy or expression necessarily smuggles in errors in expression . . .
I'd suggest that the above 'being present in the world as one's true nature' is a sufficient 'spiritual message' for most people, a freedom\liberation, not an understanding but a way or manner of being present - a great starting place. A great entry point for all religious\spiritual traditions.
The Upanishads are very clear that the above is only a starting point (sufficient though it may be) - there are finer (Divine) aspects to the world. These finer (Divine) aspects come naturally to one who is Being present in the world . . . finer aspects not necessarily as a new content, but as finer aspects of what one is already familiar with . . . a face, an apple, a piece of music.
The Upanishads describe a sequence (not to be taken seriously as a hard-fast sequence) I am That, thou art That, all this is nothing but That.
When I suggest that Arthroscopy doesn't float my boat I mean I am not enthralled by and wanting to seek out any specific content, thinking that this content will bring freedom, that appreciating any specific content will bring about a manner of Being present in the world.
This will\could bring about special powers and capacity of the finite mind - but this is independent of Being present in the world.
Also the content that you reference; divine will\purpose\meaning, hierarchy of person-beings, etc. . . . it's not my thing. I don't like to wear jeans or socks that are too tight . . . . it's a preference thing.

[Cleric K]

If we put the analogy aside for a moment, and simply equated lucid dreaming with a 'being present in the world as one's true nature', aware that using any analogy or expression necessarily smuggles in errors in expression . . .
I'd suggest that the above 'being present in the world as one's true nature' is a sufficient 'spiritual message' for most people, a freedom\liberation, not an understanding but a way or manner of being present - a great starting place. A great entry point for all religious\spiritual traditions.
The Upanishads are very clear that the above is only a starting point (sufficient though it may be) - there are finer (Divine) aspects to the world. These finer (Divine) aspects come naturally to one who is Being present in the world . . . finer aspects not necessarily as a new content, but as finer aspects of what one is already familiar with . . . a face, an apple, a piece of music.
The Upanishads describe a sequence (not to be taken seriously as a hard-fast sequence) I am That, thou art That, all this is nothing but That.
When I suggest that Arthroscopy doesn't float my boat I mean I am not enthralled by and wanting to seek out any specific content, thinking that this content will bring freedom, that appreciating any specific content will bring about a manner of Being present in the world.
This will\could bring about special powers and capacity of the finite mind - but this is independent of Being present in the world.
Also the content that you reference; divine will\purpose\meaning, hierarchy of person-beings, etc. . . . it's not my thing. I don't like to wear jeans or socks that are too tight . . . . it's a preference thing.

Cleric provided a multiple choice question - I didn't get it, I answered him in my own manner, it's not a big deal. Instead of burying me under all these triangles just tell me what you're thinking.

Thank you for answering, Lorenzo, even if in your own manner. Your answer gives me some orientation about in between which letters your answer would have fallen, had you chosen to answer in that way.

It's somewhat strange that you didn't get the analogy. You are an intelligent person - both intellectually and spiritually - so it's out of the question that you don't have the capacity to understand the analogy. And you know very well that you have n-times the capacity to understand it. Surely, when you say "I didn't get it" you don't mean "I don't get it because it is beyond my capacity." Not at all. It's rather "Of course I could understand the analogy if I wanted to. But I don't want to. I choose to see it as some golden calf mind puzzle that doesn't deserve my energy."

And that's fine. I got the message. Won't be bothering you again.

[lorenzop]

The issue with analogies\metaphors is in multiple interpretations and uses - for example, Ashwin looked the dream analogy to mean that the desired content is not different than the ordinary (not his exact words) - where for me using a dream analogy equates to pursuing dream like content.
Why is the analogy of a dream important to your question?
Can you ask it without using an analogy\metaphor\drawing?

To add: Usually an analogy\metaphor is used to clarify the main point, the metaphor\analogy is generally not the main point.

[Cleric K]

Why is the analogy of a dream important to your question?

To make clear the role of becoming lucid to a higher, more aware level of being.

Here's an example. Imagine you dream that you burn alive, you have horrible nightmare. You wake up and find out that you have forgotten the heater on max next to you. This is key: something in our waking sensory life has been transformed into the flow of dream imagery. The images in the dream were telling a symbolic story of something that is happening in a more encompassing world. We can never find that world inside the dream images, no matter how much we chop them down, and this is why you are incorrect to say that spiritual science aims to dominate the dream images. To manipulate the dream images from within the dream, for our own egoistic purposes, is the domain of black magic.

The two worlds are connected. If we could become lucid in our nightmare and know something of the sensory environment, we could bring them in harmony.

Such is the analogy. In many aspects our present Earthly dream is nightmarish. Becoming lucid is not about becoming black magicians (although many desire exactly this - they see the dream as the means to experience their fantasies). The analogy is to understand that what we see in the dream is not even half of reality. Things become nightmarish on Earth because our soul and spiritual dimension is in the dark. We're basically puppets on strings of unknown forces that roam the collective soul of humanity. Now you can say "I don't buy this!" Well, a dream character may also not buy that his burning alive in the dream is matter of turning a knob in a higher world.

Many will say "I don't care. As long as I get what I want from this nightmarish life - screw humanity". And not much can be objected to this. It's a phase of development as I noted in the other thread. But if we understand the analogy in its deep significance, then we'll also understand that we're collectively responsible for the nightmarish situation in the sensory spectrum. And by working to attain lucid consciousness we can know much more of reality and be active across the full spectrum.

[lorenzop]

Thanks. It was not clear before why you incited the analogy of lucid dreaming. My answer stays pretty much the same.
There may be a world content associated with our waking world (much like dream world is associated with waking world), but investigating\exploring this (possible) world is not my cup of tea, nor do I think there's any additional bliss or freedom to be found in this other (possible) world.

[Cleric K]

Thanks. It was not clear before why you incited the analogy of lucid dreaming. My answer stays pretty much the same.
There may be a world content associated with our waking world (much like dream world is associated with waking world), but investigating\exploring this (possible) world is not my cup of tea, nor do I think there's any additional bliss or freedom to be found in this other (possible) world.

OK, Thank you. This makes your answer even more clear in the context of a/b/c/...