TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 19)

* * *

TG Comments: Misc Communities

POST: Ever heard of r/DimensionalJumping? (/r/threekings/)

Q1: The interesting thing about it is that if you read their methods, they are just standard magick to get you the things you want. That raises questions: are they interpreting simple magick working as "dimension jumping"? Does all magick work through dimension jumping and we don't realize it? Are they both doing normal magick AND dimension jumping in addition to that because that is the intent?
I'm leaning toward the lasst one, because I've never experienced other abnormalities (things being "different" after a ritual/spell), other than the purpose of the ritual/spell coming to fruition. Then again, I wasn't looking for them, so I don't know.

The underlying concept of that subreddit was, in fact, partly to encourage an exploration into whether the idea of "methods" (and related notions) was valid at all. And, from there, to seek to unpack the nature of "experiences" and the nature of descriptions about experiences.

Making a distinction between those two "natures" - and investigating the relationship between them - tends to highlight that taking concepts like "dimensional jumping" and "magick" or whatever as literal independent things might be an error. And so talking about "dimensional jumping" being a version (or not) of a "simple magick working" can be a bit meaningless, if all that is truly meant by "magick" is just a way of talking conceptually about certain sorts of experiences. The basic assumption that there is anything "behind" experiences, and the descriptions can somehow capture that "behind", might be... unsupported.

Which isn't to say that those descriptions aren't useful - for discussion and planning and designing and so on. But they are not "what is happening" (itself possibly a dubious idea). After all, the basic common everyday description of being a person-object located within a world-place (where "the world" is taken to be a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time' that is made from 'parts'") is certainly useful. But it is perhaps not really true as a direct experience, when we check.

That "checking" was really what the metaphor (?) of "dimension jumping" was intended to promote, as presented in the subreddit anyway. Note that "metaphor" doesn't mean you can't have experiences that are patterned exactly "as if" something is true; it's just that it is not fundamentally true. Descriptions might not capture experiences, but they might have utility in structuring them. And so on.

Q2: I'm just curious. Why make the subreddit a read only archive? It was an interesting sub until it closed down. The new r/DimensionJumping isn't that active.

That "new" subreddit isn't really even the new subreddit (it's not a continuation).

The thinking behind making it a read-only archive:

The original idea that developed was that the subreddit would be fairly unmoderated in terms of posts, but we'd bash things out in the comments section, via dialogue. So it was basically "moderation by contribution" (of moderators and regular participants who'd been around for a while). This worked well when there was only a few active contributors, slowly increasing. I personally spent a lot of time engaging in quite detailed conversations (in the sense of leading an investigation, not dictating conclusions) and so did many others.

However, eventually (as often happens for niche topics) the subreddit got swamped with users - often via indirect links - who didn't read any previous discussions or the intro material before posting, leading to repeated questions and/or a naive idea of the subreddit based just on its name. The volume meant that the old model just didn't work anymore. That number of pseudo-one-on-one couldn't happen in parallel.

The reason for "archiving" the subreddit rather than letting it just continue, is that letting it run on would dilute the material that had arisen within the subreddit. It would continue its march into a general sort of "new-agey/LOA/magick" hybrid and the residual value would be gone. Better, it was thought, to lock that down, and others could continue their more literal idea of "dimensional jumping" elsewhere - and, eventually, we'd continue the core thread in another forum, with a different approach to moderation and contribution.

POST: 2 cups method question (/r/DimensionShifting/)

If I recall correctly:

Given that the "two cups method" (originally: two glasses exercise) was intended as a demonstration exercise targeting the nature of experience and the nature of ideas about experience, the thinking behind suggesting that one should not do it too often would be that it's best to leave some space to more easily, more accurately, observe whether performing it has a link with subsequent changes in experience -- or not.

That's why it was an "exercise" rather than a "method": it can't really be a "method" until it's been proven to actually cause change. And if it does actually cause change (a view that may or may not be arrived at via repeated, distinct experiments) then there are probably more interesting conclusions to draw other than "let's pour more glasses of water to change the world" or similar. :-)

Q1: I don't think it was u/triumphantgeorge as they have a specific idea about dimension jumping that was more based on the importance of discussion not the reality or fixation on the dimension jumping. I don't recall the post you are mentioning, though I am sure someone wrote something along those lines.
Everyday you choose to do something different you are making a jump. Dimension jumping is just another tool. Action of one kind or another is required for you to grow, but the universe always responds to our action.

Yep, pretty much.

Q2: Now that I make you back into Reddit or maybe I just intentionally shifted to a version where you are already back, I wanted to ask you about this exercise of yours. Did you invented this exercise or you take it from somewhere else and explain it with your own words?

I made it up. It was originally written as a quick response in a GITM thread, later slightly tidied up for the DJ subreddit when I fully took that over. It's just an example of pattern-linking really, but it has the benefit of being easily performed plus extremely mundane -- and that's quite an effective combination in an exercise designed for exploring this area.

Q2: Ok, did you still keep that gitm thread, it will be nice to see how it was born, on other note is it connected to Wicca spells. Also I'm curious from what standpoint you are viewing this exercise, from scientific-skeptic approach or from Occultic one or maybe from New age one, I'm pretty much asking, are you believer or not, because you put the label "exercise" and not "technique/method".

Here it is [POST: [EXPERIMENT] Glitch Generation Test, I Need Your Creative Ideas!].

The notion underpinning the DJ subreddit was that it was an environment for facilitating the exploration (experimentation, conceptualisation, discussion) of (1) the nature of experience and (2) the nature of thoughts about experience. No assumptions were offered or encouraged. What is there to "believe" without actually having an experience and drawing conclusions yourself? (Is the idea.)

Also, it's worth noting that the nature of "believing" is another issue all on its own. It's a pretty loose term anyway, but when it is referring to something along the lines of "an idea which I think is true", then the nature nature of ideas comes into play. In particular, the extent to which ideas are (or the thinking of them is) somewhat like a parallel-simultaneous experience relative to the "main strand"; they don't "get behind" our experience or "explain" it in the sense of revealing the underpinnings of it.

Of course, the term "believing" might also, or instead, be used as a word to describe something along the lines of having "adopted a perspective" or "adopted a mental/experiential posture". In that case, one might wonder whether this is something that might be more intertwined with the main strand of experience; perhaps it might constitute a "patterning" of it?

However, these things must be considered and explored; they cannot just be taken for granted because they sound appealing, or because it would be nice if they were true.

(Again, this is the thinking behind the DJ subreddit, and therefore the viewpoint taken in any discussions with "TriumphantGeorge". And it was the underlying approach to the discussion of "glitches" back when I was the prominent moderator and participant of GITM, after having resurrected it from neglect and a lack of "philosophy". It's mostly reverted back to the old ways now I think, unfortunately. But inevitably: it's a lot of work to maintain or even articulate a consistent "perspective" in these subreddits.)

Q2: Hi, I wanted to ask you are labels really needed? Are they just for strengthening your intention or they have a special role in the ritual? Can I just hold the first cup and describe my current situation and for the second cup, hold and set my intention for the change in my mind, then just pour the water? I saw the original post finally and as I see it the original intention was this to be a 'glitch in the matrix generator' and you also said that you have other exercises under your sleeve, did you post them eventually?

For the purposes of this exercise, I would do everything as described. After all, it's only an exercise, not a method, until proven otherwise. If it so happens that you get some sort of interesting results that can be repeated, then you could experiment with changing aspects of it and see what matters and what doesn't. (If you get no results at all, then there's not much point in tinkering with it, no basis for making decisions on what to tinker with.)

Loosely, though, the metaphor to use when considering the relationships between the various parts is: "patterning".

Q3: Great to see you back man. You changed my whole perspective on things at a time when I was very set in my ways. Can't thank you enough!

You're very welcome -- glad I was helpful!

Q4: hey I wanted to ask you something. Is the dimension shifting stuff actually all real? I used to follow the original sub years ago and read all the things you wrote and was a hardcore believer.
After years with no results, I eventually stopped believing and thought the entire thing was a hoax and I still do but every now and then I wonder if it is actually real, were you telling the truth?

Not a hoax, but presented as an exploration rather than a declaration of things being a certain way. Which is to say, "dimensions" should not be taken as literal, but rather as one metaphor among many that could be used to explore "the nature of experience, and the nature of descriptions about experience".

The idea was that by experimenting directly you would find out for yourself; you weren't meant to "believe" anything one way or the other. Unpacking things through philosophical-type discussion would then work in tandem with that. (This was clearer if you followed the in-comments discussions, which is where the actual meat of the subreddit took place. Two Glasses was intended to be a "blank slate" starting point from which this investigatory-type approach could progress.)

The closest approximation to that approach now is probably /r/NevilleGoddard: taking a reference concept or text (in that case taking the stories in the Bible as metaphors about reality) and using it as inspiration for a very direct, active, experimental approach.

Q4: I always thought experiencing the "effortless movement" would be what helps with exploration, to show there is something to all this beyond a reasonable doubt. The most I ever got was moving my arm, it happened years ago and I've never been able to replicate it since. Any tips for getting effortless movement, how long should I stick with it before expecting results?
Also one time I did the two glasses on a situation and that very night it appeared to work which shocked me because the situation was unlikely to fix itself. Then I found out a few weeks later it actually didn't work. But then a few months later it ended up fixing itself and working. But all the other times I did the two glasses, it never worked.
But it is experiences like that which make me wonder if there is something to all this. But if most of the two glasses fail and one of them works, that just seems like coincidence.

On the first point, don't attempt to manipulate or interact with your arm at all. Instead, bring to mind the idea of your arm being in the raised position (it's fine if you need to use a phrase or an in-place image as a lead-in to this) while having ceased to hold onto your experience of the body (simply: leave your muscles and attention alone).

For the glasses exercise, having it "work" or not is perhaps not the right perspective, since it is more meant to indicate whether there is "something worth looking into, nor not". It's deliberately called an "exercise" rather than a "method" (the whole idea of "methods" is tricky; they are essentially experiences after all rather than causes, mostly anyway).

That it might "make me wonder whether there is something to all this" . . . was exactly the point. The only way to combat "coincidence" is to do something repeatedly and in different contexts. However, it's also worth contemplating what exactly is meant when we use words like "coincidence" or "explanation" or "reason" or "cause", and so on.

Or, indeed, what is meant by "me" and "doing", etc.

POST: Scientists believe Parallel Universes ARE interacting. Is this the cause of the 'Mandela Effect'? (/r/MandelaEffect/)

Sorry for the late reply, your comment was stuck in the spam filter until I happened to look back at this thread! Excuse any slight repetition due to vague recall.

I agree with your comment about "what if" contemplation. As per Paul Feyerabend, I tend to think physics (for example) proceeds by a somewhat "anything goes" process in reality, with post-hoc justifications afterwards to clean up the story. And that is just fine.

However, this makes it doubly important to adopt a "meta" perspective on the activity itself. Specifically, as I said above, the nature of descriptions themselves. I think the idea that our connecting concepts are "true" is somewhat recent, and has become prominent as philosophy has receded as a component in our scientific outlooks. (Even though the view that our descriptions are true is itself a hidden philosophical position.)

This is ultimately what George Ellis is pointing out in his essay, and why Stephen Hawking makes seemingly foolish grandiose statements occasionally, and why N David Mermin makes his comment about the "reification of abstraction". Not long ago, this wouldn't have need to be stated! The idea that the world was really made from "atoms" (rather that "the world", a concept, being constructed from "atoms", another concept); or that light really was a wave or a particle (two concepts) and that it having aspects of both ideas was a problem; or that "gravity" (loosely speaking, the name of a description) is what really causes things to fall down, would have seemed ridiculous. But that is how we talk, mostly, and it's at the root of a lot of the threads we see here and in more "scientific" publications: this weird muddle of the idea of what is "true" or "real" because there is no firm platform upon which the discussion is occurring.

Ideas, then, I'd suggest, are about being "effective": are they useful as a thinking tool, or as a predictive tool. Either is fine. Arguments (1) and (2) are both permitted, provided descriptions are viewed in this light, put in their proper context relative to our direct experience. That is, a blend of (1) a conceptual framework which acts as a useful template of relationships in order to facilitate thinking and (2) an abstraction and codification of repeatable observations, with a greater or lesser number of "observational touch-points" for direct experience, but still never getting "behind" direct experience.

POST: I have a theory about why these happen (/r/MandelaEffect/)

I think the same applies here as to quantum-physics-inspired multiple universes descriptions. From a previous comment which then goes into more depth:

I'm with George Ellis on this, as regards quantum theory, string theory and multiverses and so on. Although it might be interesting and fun to consider philosophically, it is essentially meaningless scientifically. Having said that, the Mandela Effect is a philosophical or metaphysical issue, really, and not a scientific one, so this is not necessarily a problem for the subject as a whole; it just means we need to be mindful of what we focus upon.

So, while it is fun to consider these narratives (and they are narratives) about our experiences, they are not testable theories. In fact, anything "outside of" our experience is not testable, and your description is mostly that. We might recognise that there are patterns which are consistent with the idea that something is happening - that are "as if" it were true - but that's not the same thing. Which is fine, of course, because scientific theories aren't about "what is really happening" anyway; they are useful abstractions. However, when a description as almost no "observational touch-points" at all (that is, the description has very few observable components relative to the complexity of its conceptual framework) then the sense in which it is a useful model, rather than an enjoyable story, is questionable.

I really don't agree that "actual scientists" are proposing that we are living in a simulation, although they might engage in such "gee-whiz" discussions for popular-science-type magazines and programmes, as part of their promotional activities. (Nick Bostrom is not a good example.) If anything, one's treatment of such a hypothesis is a good indicator as to what extent you are an "actual scientist"!

Q1: I like your comment, until the part where you claim you don't agree with the unarguable reality that scientists are actually working with this theory seriously and calculatedly. I mean, that's cool i guess, but it's the reality whether you believe it or not. And why the random disclaimer about how Bostrum doesn't count? Confusing.

Bah, I knew I should have expanded on that bit of wordplay! Apologies.

So, that was intended to be a shorthand for a few things implied by the comment and the linked comment. For example, that one shouldn't conflate "working in a scientific role" with "this being a scientific hypothesis". The phrasing of "actual cosmologists and other scientists" heavily implies that the simulation hypothesis is itself a scientific hypothesis. As per the George Ellis article (to take one view), in what sense is someone being an "actual scientist" if they are engaging in what amounts to observationally-untethered philosophical musings?

Meanwhile, when I suggested that Nick Bostrom was "not a good example" in this context, it's because his Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? [https://simulation-argument.com/simulation/] paper (hosted on his The Simulation Argument webpage [https://simulation-argument.com/]) is sort of, intentionally or not, the logic equivalent of a wordplay joke. The amount of coverage it has got in the media as a "scientific" idea is largely to do with the ease with which it can be fashioned into a fun, engaging, pop-culture story in mainstream publications (in articles such as this [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix] and this [http://theantimedia.org/tech-billionaires-matrix/], for instance).

Moving past all that, though, I suggest the important question to ask would be: "what is the relationship between one's ongoing experience and any particular description of that experience?" and how the "simulation hypothesis" fits into whatever the answer is.

I think all of these "simulation" ideas can ultimately be reduced to the idea - the long-established and foundational idea - that descriptions don't explain "what is happening", rather they are codifications of regularities in observations (which are themselves an abstracted subset of experiences), by us. The end-point of the simulation hypothesis is, then, really just a rediscovery of the fact that the standard description is just that: a description, a useful abstraction, and isn't intended to be more than that (as per the N David Mermin article in the linked comment).

The "laws" of physics aren't like legal laws which the universe must "obey"; they are "observed regularities" we have woven into a conceptual framework. Any ideas about "breaking out of The Matrix", a la Musk, are a slightly mangled version of "recognising that your experience does not in fact arise within a conceptual framework", and then trying to do some things which are not "allowed". But they were never "forbidden" in the first place. The "simulation" stuff itself is just distracting fluff on top of this.

POST: Why did the devs implement dreams? (/r/outside/)

These aren't features, they are the mechanics of how Outside operates!

You are not actually the character you play in Outside, rather you are an open "game-space" which connects to Outside and adopts a particular perspective in the Outside game environment. In periods of reduced activity, your "game-space" disconnects and either connects to another pre-existing game-world, or constructs one on its own, seeded by random data fluctuations. You can see this happening in the case of hypnogogia and fragmentary imagery.

Generally these worlds are more flexible than Outside, because to save on processor and memory power, all games function on a co-creation, procedural expectation/recall-based engine - so the more players there are, the more stable a game world becomes.

Because Outside is the main, default subscription for all current players there (part of the terms and conditions), you always reconnect to Outside whenever other connections collapse. You can prove this to yourself by trying to observe the disconnection/reconnection in progress, or illustrate it via a thought experiment:

• Sit comfortably. Now imagine turning off your senses one by one:
• Turn off vision. Are you still there?
• Turn off sound. Still there?
• Turn off bodily sensations, such as the feeling of the chair beneath you. Uh-huh?
• Turn off thoughts. Where/what are you now?
• Some people are left with a fuzzy sense of being "located". This is just a residual thought. Turn that off too.

You're still there, you realise; you are a wide-open "aware space" in which those other experiences appeared. Outside is the generator of those experiences, including the body and many of the spontaneous thoughts and actions. Only a subset of change: intentional change, is actually your influence. The rest is just part of the game experience. There are rumours of players who have developed limited, dev-like "magickal" powers based on "intentional" procedures, but since these would also produce a revised game narrative to cover their tracks - 'narrative/experiential coherence' is enforced religiously by the game engine - this is hard to confirm.

When you eventually complete Outside, after the final montage sequence, the connection is terminated and the 'world' within you disappears - followed by your next adventure, should you choose to accept it!

So what happens when the game builds a world withing my "dream world"?

It doesn't. You're actually connecting to another server group completely, which is running a different instance of the game engine that Outside runs on, perhaps one with no players except for you.

Since the game engine works by reflecting your expectations/recall back at you, a "dream world" is then spontaneously built for you to experience. Since your default subscription is to Outside, though, when that dream world fails, you are generally reconnected to Outside with the "waking up" intro.

holy shit! you really understand this. very well done.

Just seeing it how it is! ;-)

POST: Randomly stumbled on this guy's posts... (/r/DimensionJumping/)

The point is really that no particular experience is special; all experiences are at the same "level" because there is only one "level". ("You-as-awareness which 'takes on the shape of' states of experience" is one way to describe it, but really that is too fussy and, as mentioned below, there's inherently no positive way to describe this situation. Which is why people do the whole "not this, not that" thing.)

Even an "enlightenment experience", then, is just more content - it's just that the content is not formatted in the same way as the usual "everyday world" content. But it's still just content. Good for noting that the larger situation is "not this, not that", but not much more than that.

Analogy: imagine having spent your whole life thinking about people in cars driving roads, and not having any other thoughts, then one day you have a thought about a man climbing a hill in a vast open landscape. The new thought undercuts the formatting of your habitual thought, opens you up - but it's still another thought. (Note, though, that in this analogy I'm not saying that such experiences are "just a thought about something". I mean to indicate that experiences themselves are essentially "unfolding thoughts" in type.)

So, you can watch whatever you like, and conceptualise things however you want, and read this or that, and listen to this person or that, but all that will be just more content, all with the same context.

The purpose, then, of doing a particular exercise or unpacking a certain way of thinking about things, is to notice via direct experience and experimentation that ultimately there is no fundamental formatting. It's not really an experience (no particular content), so much as a deduction and/with an insight about all experiences, impersonally.

This is why when the DJ subreddit was running, we'd often say that it was about exploring "the nature of experience" and also "the nature of descriptions about experience". Noting the the latter is just an example of the former, helps dodge a lot of needless seeking around (which can be fun, but it's nice to have the choice to do it or not without misunderstanding what such a "seeking experience" is).

POST: Crossover - Dimensional Jumping + LOA (/r/lawofattraction/)

Now LOA is a source of perspectives on jumping that isn't as...scifi or esoteric.

Ha, I have to say, I've always thought it was kinda the other way around!

Although, I admit, superficially the concept of "dimensional jumping" seems science fiction, but in the context of that specific subreddit that's not quite how it is presented. (It's more like a model or pattern one can adopt, rather than an actual "how it works". There is no fundamental "how it works", it is suggested.)

dimensional jumping is trying to re-invent the wheel, ignoring that the principles have been part of spiritual practices...

Although, I'd suggest that the subreddit isn't doing that, as such. The subreddit is about encouraging an examination of one's assumptions, by triggering experiences and contemplation, so that nothing is taken for granted. Even the concepts of "the world" and "reality" and "me" are suspect. The "dimensional jumping" part, then, is just a way into that, really - as the sidebar indicates, it's just one model amongst many. (Although this exploration - deliberately - takes the form of an ongoing conversations in the comments, rather than in the submissions and the subreddit setup.)

The "principles... of spiritual practices" are something to be explored, not accepted, I'd suggest. They all come from a particular culture, speak to a particular environment, the perspective of their time. There's nothing inherently special about them, in terms of their content. It's more about the "gap" they point to, the context of their descriptions, that's ultimately important. In a way, the wheel has to be continually reinvented, in order to keep it wheel-shaped!

Jumping isn't as developed as the LOA practices.

That is to some extent deliberate, really, although I'd say the "patterning" model that underlies the suggested exercises is quite fully-developed. But of course, the models are intended to be adjacent descriptions ("parallel constructions in thought") and structures used for intentional shaping of experience, rather things which capture "how it is". It's about building a bridge between what can be conceived of, and what can be adopted as experience.

Because, "what is really real does not matter", as you say, if it is only temporary and can be imprinted upon, or shape-shifted by adopting a particular fact or pattern. Rather, having recognised the only thing that is fundamentally true (that is, the fact of the property of being-aware), all other facts are seen as relatively true only.

POST: You need to actually read or listen to Neville (/r/NevilleGoddard/)

It's not so much about "talking down" the Law of Attraction, though? It's more about highlighting that LoA employs a different set of metaphors as compared with Neville's writing, and how mixing those metaphors leads to confusion - or empty pronouncements that, while "inspirational", are essentially meaningless because they have no grounding beyond some sort of general optimism.

For sure, the truth of things is always the same - that's why it's "true"! - but that goes without saying, and is not the issue. There are different descriptive frameworks as a way into "the truth and how to use it", and talking about one (Neville) in terms of the other (LoA) tends to create an unhelpful muddle. Hence lots of questions that people are asking here essentially resolve into having Neville translated into LoA-speak, unhelpfully. Or worse: a question isn't asked, the LoA perspective is just assumed and then the contradictions argued about.

It's like walking into an impressionistic art class and asking everyone to explain their paintings purely in terms of optical physics (or vice versa), or assuming that they will. Ultimately they're still talking about "painting in practice and outcome", but there's a definite choice being made in how to approach it conceptually - “brush strokes” versus “light rays” - even if the desired result is similar. The experience of the final painting is the same, but we wouldn't say that the two perspectives are identical, nor that one perspective was "based on" the other.

Personally, I do think that LoA is a much more vague set of concepts, and that "attraction" is not a good metaphor for the basic fact of experience, since it implies a spatial and temporal aspect, a separation between "you" and "experience" and the notion of something "happening" in between.

In contrast, Neville's approach to this - that creation is already done, that what you are is the context of that creation, and that to change experience you change your (impersonal) state to make some facts more prominent than others - manages to avoid that, while providing a tighter framework less prone to "inspirational" thinking. The different way the two frameworks handle the nature and operation of "visualisation", for example, highlights how much more complete, and therefore useful, Neville's approach to description is.

Hence, maintaining the distinction between LoA and Neville as parallel ways of conceptualising the nature of experience (and the nature of descriptions about experience), is surely valid.

POST: Do you decide? In your own best interests? (r/ADHD)

Do people find that life, and your impulses and thoughts, buffet you about randomly - to the extent where you realise you don't even decide what you'd like to happen never mind make actual plans for your personal self?

Using hyper focus seems to be about getting locked onto, say, a particular piece of work, which may or may not be in your actual best interests personally, for instance. Do people find they don't actually stop to decide, is this the best thing for me?

***

/r/Oneirosophy Highlights

SIDEBAR: OVERVIEW

Oneirosophy means "dream wisdom"

This is a place for idealists to further their lucidity by discussing techniques and anything else related to idealism. Techniques may include but are not limited to: contemplation of skillful ideas, meditation, magick, yoga, and lucid dreaming. Sympathetic individuals are encouraged to post their own ideas and practices to prompt discussion.

The foundations of Oneirosophy are:

• Lucidity - A state similar to gnosis or satori where one regains consciousness of the illusory nature of waking reality, just as one becomes lucid in a dream.
• Idealism All of waking reality is a mental structure, a dreamed reality. Note that a partial reading list is available for background and for inspiration.

Matter is an idea in the mind.

POST: Oneirosophy is not "the secret"

7Kek7: ts not a magic genie lamp that will grant you all of your material desires
I disagree, when I want it to be, it has literally been a genie lamp. Changing one's perspective on experience and letting go of materialism is great. But the real power is in then shaping that experience to one's desires.

Giello: Oneirosophy provides a model through which one might understand how or why the Law of Attraction/"The Secret" works. At least, that's how I see it.

POST: Some quotes from Tibetan Buddhist masters (By dharmadhatu)

When you start to dream, the dream begins as a thought, like one you would have in the daytime. But you’re asleep, so the thought intensifies and becomes something like talk or gossip, and then the gossip intensifies or solidifies into images, and then you really think that you’re seeing people, seeing places, going places, and so on. And that is how it works with conventional appearances as well.
-- Thrangu Rinpoche

At first when you pass into the dream state and images arise, you may not remember where they came from. Your awareness, however, will naturally develop until you will be able to see that you are dreaming. When you watch very carefully, you will be able to see the whole creation and evolution of the dream.
Through this practice, we can see another dimension of experience, and have access to another way of knowing how experience arises. This is important, for when we know this, we can shape our lives. The images which emerge from dream awareness will intensify our waking awareness, allowing us to see more of the nature of existence.
With continuing practice, we see less and less difference between the waking and the dream state. Our experiences in waking life become more vivid and varied, the result of a lighter and more refined awareness. We are no longer bound by conventional conceptions of time, space, [force], and energy. Within this vaster perspective we may also find that the so-called supernatural feats and legends of the great yogis and masters are not myths or miracles. When the consciousness unites the various poles of experience and moves beyond the limits of conventional thought, psychic powers or abilities are actually natural.
-- Tarthang Tulku

POST: Life not feeling real.

A1: Please try cloudbursting. Look at the sky for a few small clouds in a group. Do not tell anyone. Then pick a cloud that you want to disappear. It will. This and other reality-bending experiments will prove to you that your mind is connected to, or maybe the same as, reality itself.

cam you make clouds grow darker? Well over time

dreameraxelos: You can do whatever you want! Everything is part of your dream, so you alone have control. However, some things may seem from your perspective to be more difficult, at least at first. That's why I suggest beginning with making clouds disappear first. It's easier for your mind to accept. Once you have experience with making clouds disappear, you can move on to making them grow, move, appear, darken, lighten, etc.

POST: Contemplation upon the Gospel of Thomas (By aconfusedseeker)

Hello, friends. This sub needs more discussion to get the wheels of contemplation going. Only through contemplation can we progress in the ideas presented to us by oneirosophy. As it would happen, I've stumlbed once again upon Gnosticisim during the uneventful hours in work, and I got to re-read the Gospel of Thomas in multiple translations. However, this time I tried to apply the idea of oneirosophy and subjective idealism upon the riddle of words that Jesus left us in this amazing Gospel. Particularly, I'll nitpick a few passages that struck me as possibly resonant with the dream reality. For this, I'll use the Lambdin translation

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

This really struck a chord with me. When I first delved into non-dualism and oneirosophy, I was grasping at straws when it came to shattering the illusion of this reality. The materialist in me wept as the dogma of Christianity I have lived my not-so-long life and materialism based thinking slowly unraveled to the nature of our dream reality. I was a confused seeker that sought (as my name implies) and as I read more and more I became troubled. Now I am not so much, as I slowly lose fear of death, hell, and nothingness after death. I am astonished. The last words imply that just like subjective idealism proposes, we - every single on of us - could indeed rule over all (mayhap through Solipsism?) in the current reality. What do you think?

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

The idea that indeed when you outsource the you that you have forgotten you are to somewhere else, you lose control of the dream. The kingdom of the father (Awareness, One) is within you, for you are the aspect of that Awareness that dreams all of realities in all of the time. As within, so without. Non-dualism. If you will not know yourself (as the awareness rather than the dream character), you will be trapped in the idea of materialism and self-inflict upon yourself misery as something that can't be changed, something that is outside of your control (poverty), but once you have known, you will stop being trapped in that (stop being the poverty and as such the source of it).

(4) Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."

This brings forth the idea that though we can see a seven old day child, the awareness behind that dream character is so much more than what is presented to us, and as such is presented also an idea of reconciliation into the One, for we come from the One.

(5) Jesus said "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."
(18) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."
(36) Jesus said, "Do not be concerned from morning until evening and from evening until morning about what you will wear."

Recognize the dream for what it is - a dream, and nothing will be hidden from you, because you as awareness exist out side of time and space (you stand at the beginning and the end), and as such can mold the reality according to your will (manifest what you will). Thus, stop worrying.

(24) His disciples said to him, "Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness."
(42) Jesus said, "Become passers-by."

Become passers-by. Detach yourself from the dream character you experience, even a bit, and observe the dream world for what it is.

(48) Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move Away,' and it will move away."

Perhaps this could be given the context of reconciliation between the dream character and the dreamer (awareness). When if you do, you will be able to change the dream (move mountains).

(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

Maybe Jesus fancied himself a solipsist? :-)

Etc. There are many more passages that could be given the explanation of oneirosophy, while many seem incompatible with the ideas of it. I would love to hear your opinions. 'Tis but one perspective/way of experience of many, but perhaps we can glean something useful to us from it? Put your own spin on it, should you desire. We can learn much from each other.

...

What's the point of ruling over the All?

The better question I think is, "What's not the point?" Try to contemplate on this a bit more before reading on. In the end, you have to come to your own conclusions to any question you ever experience.

Truly, for everyone there will be many points as to why, but I want you to consider that once you achieve that state it is all the points. When you rule over the All, you in essence become the All (or rather, return to it), and every reason for becoming it. Unbound, limitless, like "(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." "

For example for you personally by your previous thread on this sub, I would say that it would mean liberation from the assumption of being created by the position of planets and instead becoming the creator of planets, so to speak. A flip in perspective and being. Reconciliation with your true self.

One could also assume that the whole proclamation Jesus made was an Ego trap. It is the Ego that drives you to power, which this phrase implies to promise. But when you strengthen the Ego, you solidify the dream character you play and thus solidify the dream instead of loosing it to achieve that state of true self.

POST: An Interesting Thought (By CriticalMission)

When we are awake, we know that we are due to internal and "external" factors. First off, our mind is at a heightened state of awareness, as we can logically reason about many complex ideas. Additionally, we "feel" that our environment is stable. Everything is as we remember it, in that we have an innate understanding that we are living in the world we've always know. On top of this, we have certain tests that we can conduct on our environment. These tests can be similar to those tests that lucid dreamers use, known as reality checks. For example, if we look at a clock, look away, and then look back we know that the time will either be the same or be different by one minute. Yet when we are dreaming, the clock will often show vastly different results each time that we look at it.

But what if we have it all wrong? What if our dreams are a more true reality than the physical? Think about it. When we are awake we are very limited by the world around us. There are rules that we must follow. It's almost like we're trapped in a certain state of existence. Yet when we're dreaming we become free; anything is possible. And the more we dream lucidly, the more stable our dream environment becomes. Eventually one can lucid dream so much that one can begin to blur the boundaries between one's dreams and reality. The more powerful a dreamer becomes, the more "real" their dreams seem to be. Some can even experience dreams that "feel" more real than reality itself.

When we dream we have the power to control everything with our minds. Does this not seem like the most powerful state of awareness anyone can be in? The ancient stories of enlightened thinkers discuss beings who can manipulate physical reality with their thoughts. For example, Jesus of Nazareth was said to have brought someone back from the dead, cured the terminally ill, and gave a blind man the gift of sight. Whether you believe that these events actually occurred, or if they are possible is beyond the point. What matters here is the fact that someone capable of these acts would be considered to exist within a higher state of existence.

When we dream, we exist within this higher state of existence. We are not bound by the laws of physics. We can fly, teleport, shape shift, manifest anything instantly, we're virtually limitless. We can still hear, taste, and touch. We can see and smell. We become untethered.

I once had a dream of myself just standing in the street. I was across from the home I grew up in. The crazy part is, everything was indistinguishable from my waking state. One moment I was lying in bed, eyes closed, everything black. The next, it felt as if my eyes were immediately opened. I could see the grass and the road. The mailboxes, the sky, the clouds; all from the point of view of … myself. I looked down and saw my palms. I turned them up and down to acknowledge I was truly there. And then I woke up. Back into the darkness.

Dreams are often not realized to be such until we awaken. But what if physical reality constitutes the real dream? We wouldn't know it until we wake up. Yet oftentimes when we sleep, we are not conscious. What if this is by design? We're not meant to be conscious when we dream because then we would wake up. We would realize that this physical reality is a construct build around us, not our true reality. We would realize that this world is more like a game than anything else. That the limitations around us are simply obstacles to be surpassed. That we play this game with ourselves because there's nothing else to do but to expand our consciousness, and this a means to that end. An organized, ordered world where we can think and interact in such a way that allows us to advance our understanding of the world around us.

May your dreams set you free.