Once a friend said to me: "... you know we met in a dream and we did this and that, what do you think?" - I replied: "Explaining is like justifying, you are there that you dream and you tell me you met me in your dream then you wake up and ask me" you know we met in a dream and we did this and that, what do you think? "
Let's start with a talk about karma (acting). There is no karma, it's all in the dream, as long as we continue to dream we make various interpretations of our dream and try to make sense of it, we call it cause and effect or free choice or whatever you like, but then what is the use of describing the truth of the dream ?
To get out of it, for an awakening from dualism, it is "recommended" not to get attached to the reasons and events of the dream but to concentrate on 'the one who dreams', on the conscience, on the ego ... without following the thoughts, intentions of this or that, good or bad….
That's all ... What's the use of further speculation when the mirror can never give you any substance? Only the sense of being, of existing, is undeniable, it cannot be doubted, it is the only certainty or "capital" we have.
To express being we say "I am", this both in the waking state and in the dream, but even in deep sleep, or in fainting, this being is implicit even if - then - we cannot affirm it, yet we are well aware. .. to exist.
Consciousness is not a process that can be described in any form, consciousness can be experienced and directly known, the moment we try to describe it it escapes our control, the abstraction of thought takes over, yet it "assists" or rather "allows" thought , it is testimony and the primary cause of every mental development. Unfortunately the mind uses dualistic and specular language and therefore cannot describe what is beyond the mirror. Mind is the reflection, consciousness is the light that manifests itself as a reflection.
Therefore, since this consciousness is the only and absolute truth, you can also call it "God" - if you want - in the sense that it represents the true "existence presence". As for the personal consciousness, or mind, it is only a refraction, a "form" of consciousness, variegated and unrepeatable, like a drop of water that is never the same as the other, like a leaf that never is equal to the other, like a speck of dust that is never the same as the other, no individual consciousness can be the same as another ... this diversity is the characteristic of consciousness when it manifests itself in the individual aspect. But this "diversity" is possible only because consciousness (which is the matrix) in its undifferentiated expression is the basis of any and all vital manifestations.
Attributeless "awareness" is the necessary substrate for unveiling each attribute.
The individuality of the mind dies with physical death, but not pure consciousness that continues to manifest itself in countless other forms, the so-called individual soul is a mask, a fictitious projection, a dream character in consciousness.
How many characters do we dream of in a dream and who are they if not the dreamer himself, or the conscience that dreams? Therefore, beyond any thought, religious or atheist it may be, that "I am" cannot be denied, that is, the only truth. It is this "I am" that is defined as the Absolute in Advaita Vedanta, as well as in Platonic thought, and even in the Bible it is said: "I am that I am" - I am what I am.
What is the point of continuing to beat around the bush about an obvious experience, an experience that does not need to be confirmed by anyone, and in which only the experiencer is real? Yet when we begin to think about this "I am" again, the inevitable differences of thought appear (religions, interpretations, ideologies, philosophies) which, as we said at the beginning, are as infinite as the forms and names .... and then? If you say, "I think it ... and I believe it", it means being here, or "presence-fixity", meaning being there in a place and in a time.
However, you will agree that being is not conditioned by place and time, being is independent of place and time and has no need for feedback to know its existence, nor does it need confirmation in thought. Since we are used to confronting each other, and so far we have talked a lot ..., we can also say that "we" are all inside, in this elaboration of being-there (always you, me .. and all the others).
But if you, regardless of the comparison with us all, did not know that you exist "ab initium" - regardless of "our" supposed existence - (and note that this is true for each of us) could you perhaps say that you do not exist? Could you objectively and subjectively claim that you don't exist if we didn't have this literary comparison?
Do you perhaps need to look in the mirror to know your existence?
But, in going in circles, we seem to follow a given path and since we are used to considering existence when it manifests itself in the form of "thought" and - clearly - since thought, like the word and like every concept, is for its shareable nature (as it is assumed that it can be transmitted to an "other"), any consideration that appears in our mind becomes for us an axiom, a truth, which we "possess" in common, but - beware - to whom that thought appears ? Before you can share it, who is that conscious self that perceives it (and subsequently shares it)? Without the first person, without being in the first person, how is it possible to become aware of the other? And of the here and now, etc. etc. etc.
This beautiful speech, therefore, does not implement our existence, our being conscious, if not - perhaps - for the "suspicion" (I hope it is certain) that "I am what you are". I am, and therefore you are and when you are, I am at the same time, that's - we are reflected in each other, so you and I are the exact same thing: that is, consciousness.
Continuing in the reverb, do you now see the "specularity" of the forms? But for practical reasons we accept separation, as in a dream, because this is the game of consciousness ...
".... just for the sake of the game ..."
Paolo D'Arpini
Per uscirne fuori, per un risveglio dal dualismo, si "consiglia" di non attaccarsi alle ragioni ed agli eventi del sogno ma di concentrarsi su ‘colui che sogna’, sulla coscienza, sull'io... senza seguire i pensieri, le intenzioni di questo o quello, bello o brutto….
Tutto qui... A che serve ulteriore speculazione quando lo specchio non potrà darti mai alcuna sostanza? Solo il senso dell'essere, di esistere, è innegabile, non si può mettere in dubbio, è la sola certezza o "capitale" che abbiamo.
Per esprimere l'essere noi diciamo "io sono", questo sia nello stato di veglia che nel sogno, ma persino nel sonno profondo, o nello svenimento, questo essere è implicito anche se – allora - non possiamo affermarlo, eppure siamo ben consapevoli... di esistere.
Essendo quindi questa coscienza l'unica ed assoluta verità, puoi anche chiamarla "Dio" - se vuoi - nel senso che essa rappresenta la vera "esistenza presenza". Per quel che riguarda la coscienza personale, o mente, essa è solo una rifrazione, una "forma" della coscienza, variegata ed irripetibile, come una goccia d'acqua che non è mai uguale all'altra, come una foglia che non è mai uguale all'altra, come un granello di polvere che non è mai uguale all'altro, nessuna coscienza individuale può essere uguale ad un'altra... questa diversità è la caratteristica della coscienza quando si manifesta nell'aspetto individuale. Ma questa "diversità" è possibile solo perché la coscienza (che è la matrice) nella sua espressione indifferenziata è alla base di ogni e qualunque manifestazione vitale.
La "consapevolezza" priva di attributi è il substrato necessario per svelare ogni attributo.
"....just for the sake of the game..."
Paolo D'Arpini
Commento di Aliberth: “Ma se il sognatore crede ‘realmente’ al suo mondo ed ai personaggi del suo ‘sogno’, com’è possibile che egli arrivi a ri-conoscere questa ‘verità’, se non incontrerà un ‘insegnante’ che possa spiegargli il meccanismo della mente-maya (cioè, vittima dell’illusione-sogno)? E se, questo sognatore, in modo ostinato e pervicace, preferisce continuare a credere alla realtà illusoria, piuttosto che all’insegnante che gli rivela la verità, allora come la mettiamo? Il sogno sarà costretto a continuare e l’illusione a imperare. E quindi, l’io-sono continuerà ancora e sempre ad essere ‘Tu sei, egli è, noi siamo, voi siete, essi sono’, fino a che il karma di quella persona non lo obbligherà a ‘risvegliarsi’ definitivamente. Questo è ciò che purtroppo avviene in questa fantomatica ‘manifestazione’, cioè nel sogno collettivo in cui ci troviamo immersi...”
RispondiElimina