In our deepest sleep we are totally unaware of ourselves, mentally, physically, and emotionally.
The journey to and from sleep is all associated, yet there must be some definite point where anything concomitant with us here in this outer manifestation, becomes irrelevant.
Every morning, like a can of spilled paint, we awake and morph into what we are, in the situations that we found ourselves in just prior to the exit we experienced the night before.
Every night we experience something so profoundly unrelated and unconnected to this outer world that even the term we experience does not apply.
Anything we are, anything we do has no effect on whatever we experience in the nightly thing that we either become or disappear to.
If death were possible for us…is death what we experience each night?[/size]
[size=50]…[/size]
[size=115]
My thesis for this thread: If death were possible for us, a true death would have been similar to what we experience each night when we sleep.
[/size]
You sleep because you overcome yourself with imbalances due to insistences that cause inner stress. Both chemical and emotional stresses get released during sleep so that the mind and body can return to a normal, more sustainable state. Not all people require sleep.
The distinction between death and sleep is that one is returning to a state of non-existence and the other is returning to a state of health and sustainability.
Why do you dream? You have the feeling that there is somebody, a self, who is running the show of your perceptions, translating what is seen, heard and felt, directing the eyes, saying “This is beautiful; that is ugly. I will look at this; I will not look at that.” You cannot control like that – you think that you can; but the camera is taking pictures all the time, and the tape- recorder is recording all the time, whether you look at one thing for a longer time than you look at something else. Then, when the body is at rest or your thoughts are in a passive state, these things begin to come up – one bit of this, one bit of that – it creates some kind of a mosaic and you begin to dream. When that ‘somebody’ is not there, there is nothing which says "I was asleep, I was dreaming, and now I am awake.
But when you dream and no one is there, and when you awake, is there someone there? Is that someone you? And are you there? Or are you there in the dream, where there was not someone?
How can you tell? And to make things more difficult, how do you know if you are not someone in my dream? Or that I am someone in your dream?
My dream could be your reality. We have only our senses, to validate. Without it, it’s just representation. Death is a representation. So is life.
Please allow me to answer this by using an example from the narrative of the popular movie ‘Inception’
I’m writing on the basis you’ve all seen this so apologies if you haven’t - look away now if you intend to!
Mol is Cobb’s wife who is dead in the real world yet she exists in the form of a projection inside the head of Cobb.
When they travel to ‘Limbo’ in the movie, Mol is there and yet she can’t be.
Projections cannot dream themselves and when they are killed in a dream they simply cease to be. Only dreamers can end up in Limbo.
IRL with death comes decomposition, a beautiful process in which the elements of our physical bodies are decayed and subsequently recycled by the Earth so the matter can continue to matter
So just as in that small ‘deus ex machina’ or whatever one wants to call it, in the example above from Inception, death cannot be like sleep because death is permanent, the brain decays away and that not only means one cannot dream after death, it also means one cannot share one’s energy to a collective conscious of any kind, as one would have no energy left.
From the standpoint of pure logic, we could say your supposition is untrue on a different basis: if anything remained of us in death, however metaphysical, we would likely assume it permanent. That being the case we would then consider how many dead people there are compared to the comparatively diminishing number of those currently alive. And so if it is permanent, then the number of ‘dead’ would rise and rise and rise and continue to do so until there is some significant impact on the metaphysical world.
Apologies if I haven’t explained that last part very well - imagine sending every dead person into a room after they die. Regardless of the size of the room it would eventually fill or overflow, yes?
Of course this second point is of course dependent on whether you suppose the dead’s metaphysical remains would remain permanently, in any realm.
If you want to know what sleep is, poetically, start reading some good poetry. If you want to know what sleep is, scientifically, read some good science. Both are available on line.
If you want to know what death is, try it. Death is always possible. It’s inevitable, as well.
A “deus ex machina” is a theatrical term wherein the play is ended by a figure of God being lowered from the top of the theatre onto the stage to solve all the problems the play has presented as insolvable. The appearance of god, through stage machinery, pulleys, ropes, and a platform, solves everything.
I could go on, but I won’t.
Suffice to say, I find a lot of misinformation in this thread which doesn’t need to be.
There’s a strong relation between one’s lack of control in a dream, and one’s lack of control awake. Yet it’s common to dismiss the dream, and say, ‘It’s not real’.
Why isn’t it real?
‘Because you had no control, and when you wake, it’s bridge to this moment, is severed. There’s inconsistency, it’s unreliable. The state of the environment in ‘reality’ (outside our perception), determines the state of one’s dream. Reality pulls one away from a dream. It has the crucial vote. Dreams are slaves to reality. Dreams are a false representation of reality, and every time you awake, the dream is shattered. Dreams are slain by the mightier of planes’.
You have no control in life, merely the illusion of control. Whilst you’re in a state of sleep, you (awareness) don’t access the plane of reality beyond one’s body. It’s bridge to this moment, is not severed. It has affected us, if it’s nothing more than our awareness of this state, which is contrast to our present interpretation (reaction).
Real - Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
If one defines existence as potential for affect, then clearly dreams are real because they can affect the aspects of reality which are commonly believed and be affected by those same aspects.
Furthermore, the criteria which one dismisses a dream, by the same standard, can be used to dismiss being awake. So, if you tick our awareness as part of reality, then the contents of our awareness can’t be beyond reality.
On the flip side, do we not suppose that there is something that triggers our experience? Does that not stumble on reality’s definition?
Our reality is our senses, not what’s beyond them.
So, if one says dreams are slaves to reality, whilst admitting dreams to be part of reality, one is saying that a dream is a slave to itself, which is a given. All that would constrict a dream, has already been applied.
Dreams are not false, but a different reaction to the supposed ‘reality’ beyond our awareness that produces a different real reality (awareness) [pleonasm?] than our current state. We suppose there’s difference, but that isn’t real.
Isn’t it? If the standard says the contents of something true is also true, then aren’t our suppositions true for we are aware of them?
Suppositions can be changed, and the previous ones become unreal, for they are not in one’s awareness any longer. They lose affect.
To be slain is affect, which leads to a circle of reaction. That being, reality smites a dream, by reality’s access to said dream, said dream is validated by reality - bridged to reality.
How can a dream be shattered if it’s bridged?
Dreams are as mighty as the other planes, for they are one in the same.
I don’t think I’ve even made the point I wanted to…
When you’re awake your consciousness is constrained by the “exterior” world. Your consciousness is being pinched by stimuli, namely other consciousnesses.
When you’re dreaming, your consciousness is not restrained by the exterior world.
That’s why you get away with anything.
There’s a constant demand on your part to experience everything that you look at, everything that you are feeling inside. If you don’t do that, you as you know yourself and as you experience yourself is coming to an end. That is a frightening thing. You don’t want to come to an end, you want continuity. All pursuits are in the direction of strengthening that continuity. So, all your experiences, all your meditations – all that you do is strengthening the self. They are all self centered activities. Whatever you do to be free of the self is also a self centered activity. The process you adopt to attain being is also a becoming process. So there is no such thing as being. Anything you do – any movement in any direction on any level – is a becoming process.
We function as if the whole world is real. You have to accept the reality of the world up to a point. Otherwise, you can’t function in this world. The only way of knowing if you are asleep or awake is when there is, in consciousness, a division as dream state, wakeful state and sleep state. A total absence of this division in your consciousness – not transcending these things, but a total absence is a state where you don’t know what state you are in.
The term ‘deus ex machina’ is used more modernly to refer to a plot-hole of a nature where something happens to aid the narrative, but has no explanation/justification within the narrative, so as to make something ‘fit’.
In movies it’s a certain type of plot hole which is sometimes referred to as this.
For instance, if the villain finds an obvious way to defeat the hero but doesn’t use it so as to give the viewer a happy ending, or a few more examples from popular films here… filmschoolrejects.com/opinio … ngs-sb.php
What you have eloquently described for us is the etymology of that phrase.
Great counter, but might i ask if there is a way in which time might be infinite or “existing at the same time” as you suggest, but space be finite in size?
To me, if one says time is infinite and death does not destroy us completely then where does this information go following the “end” stage of our physical lives?
No matter the size of the party room, eventually guests would overflow. If only our physical nature dies off and we remain in some form surely an infinite space would be required also yes?
You see my point at least, yes?
Ah, are you then saying that time is an illusion and our lives are permanently flittering in and out of physical reality, as and when needed, for ever?
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood would you care perhaps to paraphrase your last post for me?
I’m struggling without clearly defined distintction between the natural (physical) realm we perceive, and the objectively-existing one we cannot.
Thanks
This is false. There are instances in which external stimuli, such as sounds, smells, or tactile sensations get incorporated into a dream. I’ve also experienced situations in which physical pain or discomfort was incorporated into my dreams. Ive even been fully aware that I was asleep and dreaming during a dream.
This is also false. What we are has everything to do with how/why we dream. And what we do has everything to do with what we dream about, or where we “disappear to”.
[size=111]
When I said, In our deepest sleep we are totally unaware of ourselves, mentally, physically, and emotionally.
I should have said, In our deepest sleep we are totally unaware of ourselves, mentally, physically, and emotionally.
When I made this statement; Anything we are, anything we do has no effect on whatever we experience in the nightly thing that we either become or disappear to. I’m not sure I was speaking about dreams.
There is a deep, deep sleep that we disappear into…deeper than our dream state.
[/size]
