Hello Dan,
Daniel M. Ingram:
To label lucid dreams hallucinations is simply one label. Sensations arise that can be called lucid dreams, or dreams in general. To label them hallucinations is your preference. Ok.
I am not the one who chose what the word "hallucination" means. It is quite clearly defined in the dictionary: "a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images." For the record, my preference is not necessarily to label anything one way or another, but it is accurate to say that I want to use clearly defined words so that communication may happen.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Tarin still says he dreams. I wonder what that means to you in AF terms? Richard apparently doesn't. Whatever. My grandmother didn't either, apparently, until she took first Parkinson's meds: really freaked her out when she started dreaming. To those following along at home, this has turned into an AF (Actual Freedom) vs something else debate.
I am following along at home, and I was unaware that this had anything to do with attaining an actual freedom from the human condition, or what an actual freedom from the human condition has to do with a debate with "something else." The original thread asked a question, which has been reiterated several times now. To answer the question sufficiently for Bruno and other onlookers, there are some qualities about the universe and subjective experience which need to be investigated and the facts set straight if there is to be a reasonable answer given. For example, whether or not there are objective things existing outside of one's personal experience.
Daniel M. Ingram:
To assume that not dreaming anymore is somehow better than dreaming is another view, so far as I can tell. It is interesting to see the various perspectives on this. Richard seems to think that going to sleep and waking up with no appreciation of a gap is the highest attainment. Tenzin Wangyal seems to think continuity of awareness during deepest sleep with focus on the clear light of awareness during the hours of sleep is the highest level of dream yoga. I think that there is room for debate. Apparently you don't.
So that I understand, are you saying that your "view" assumes that "not dreaming anymore is somehow better than dreaming?" I can only ask, as I have not said anything which could even remotely be construed as meaning that. I do not know what Richard's appreciation of sleep is, and so I cannot confirm or deny that one way or another; has he said this to you or have you read that somewhere? As for me "apparently" not wanting to debate (something), I'm not really sure what is being debated in this context...so I can't really say whether or not I think that there's room for debate.
Daniel M. Ingram:
To label this waking reality one way and dreams another are just labels. Those are experiences: call them what you like.
I'm not sure what your point is here...as stated above, I am not in the business of defining words or creating dictionaries. To label one experience one way and to label another experience another way just makes sense...why would I reduce every experience down to the word "experience?" That would make it impossible to discuss the differences of specific experiences and we would not be able to communicate. As no communication could take place, the quality of one's experience could not be influenced for the better. Further, I think that you're implying that "waking reality" and "dreams" are the same thing, and I am disagreeing with you (hence the content of my previous posts). And as that disagreement is fundamental to answering the original post's query, it is worth sussing out our differences of opinion, no?
Daniel M. Ingram:
Clearly you prefer one to the other: these are your preferences based on conditioning. Enjoy them and see where they get you. The original Buddhist traditions seemed to give your hallucinations equal weight with ordinary reality. Very heavy Tibetan practitioners today do also, so far as I can tell. I see it all as sensate stuff: direct, clear, ordinary, just as it is.
I do not have preferences based on conditioning, I have preferences based on sensible reason such as what enables me to have a healthy, comfortable experience of this moment. For instance, I prefer sleeping on a soft bed to a bed of nails, and I prefer to see a doctor for an illness rather than not. I enjoy the outcome of those preferences when they happen (and when they do not), and I also enjoy using the dictionary's definition of words because it makes communication much easier. As I am not trying to "get" somewhere, I cannot say much more about that. I have already arrived at where I want to be.
Daniel M. Ingram:
That the universe is purely physical is not easily defensible. Even if you posit hallucinations, that hallucinations happen, regardless of whether or not you all them hallucinations, blows the theory right there. That anyone dreams blows the theory right there. Again, to assume that something other than sensate reality is the basis for all other concepts, views, dogmas and extrapolations is hard to prove, I think. How do you go about rationalizing that the broad scope of what happens under the word "reality" doesn't include things that clearly happen, regardless of how you label them?
I am failing to see how your statement "blows the theory" at all, perhaps you could elaborate? I never said that someones' dreams are part of the universe...that's the whole point, they're subjective experiences. Sure, they're triggered by chemicals within the brain, and both of the chemicals and the brain are in / part of the universe...but unless you can fly to my residence and hand me a dream, I don't think you've found any holes in the statement that this universe is made of perdurable matter.
Daniel M. Ingram:
You seem to be the one who can't see the sky, which in this case means mental phenomena. That you have none would be a fun jab, except that clearly you do, and clearly they have bought into some dogma that clearly isn't true on any cursory observation.
To set the record straight, I do not see mental phenomena, which is what you seem to be saying by relating "mental phenomena" to "the sky," and with your "except that clearly you do." And furthermore, I haven't bought into any dogma, and this is simple to see upon personal reflection as I have done away with subjective "truths" and "falsehoods" and all the like.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Discrimination, the ability to differentiate, is an inherent function of the mind, obviously, as is the ability to identify various qualities, distances, and the like. I am not sure what you are arguing for or against in that second paragraph, but perhaps you could clarify.
Yes, to discriminate, think, reflect, etc are all functions of the intellect, and I'm happy for such an ability. That paragraph has to do with the disagreement I have noted multiple times in this thread. To "clarify:" there are objects existing independently of human awareness. This universe is permanent and objective despite what human subjective experience implies. There is more being stated that has to do with those notions and I encourage you to re-read my posts if you like, as I'm pretty sure I have stuck to a steady beat.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Should we try again? Perhaps we are defining our terms differently and sure that we understand the other's definitions, and thus are getting lost in ill-defined language or some other communication problem, as I don't think you understand what I am saying, and I can hardly believe that you are saying what it seems you are.
Okay. Most of my terms are defined in the dictionary or have been defined above (such as how I define awareness/emptiness), and as I have read your book a dozen times, read hundreds of your posts, had the privilege of speaking with you both on the phone and in person, and was enlightened for a time, I am relatively certain I am understanding what you're saying. If you have changed the way in which you refer to certain things, or see where I may be misunderstanding you, you could let me know of those instances and I will happily correct course if that is necessary.
Best,
Trent