The true self lost in the dream - Rupert Spira's analogy

[RMQualtrough]

Imagine there is an actor "John Smith" who plays the part of King Lear. He gets so into the role that he literally forgets he is John Smith and believes that he is King Lear.

He performs the play to a standing ovation.

A close friend goes backstage to congratulate him, and to his surprise finds him distraught. "Why are you so sad? The crowd loved you!" John Smith proceeds to lament about his betrayal at the hands of his three daughters.

His friend realizes that John Smith has completely forgotten who he is. "But you are not King Lear! Who were you before you were King Lear?" the friend asks. And they track back to before the casting of the role and eventually John Smith remembers: "AH! I was never King Lear. I was always John Smith!"

In the same way we must track back the character we think we are to know the true self. What are we truly? We have to go back before any identity because identity is built upon memory. We have to go before thought because thought is an object and we are the subject. When we strip away the identity of "I am Richard" or whatever, and enter the realm of pure thoughts, we can go deeper and look backwards behind even those thoughts and see that which precedes ALL things that we have ever known. And the ONLY thing through which we have ever known or experienced anything at all. And we say "AH! I was never this human being, I was always consciousness itself".

 

[Dom Cruise]

John Smith is lost in a grove.

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Perhaps the most fitting original post here for dark days such as these

 

[RMQualtrough]

Perhaps the most fitting original post here for dark days such as these

Twilight spotted.

 

[Lemmingwise]

We are as much our subconsciousness as we are our consciousness.

As we also are our body and not just our thoughts.

There is no realm of pure thought. It is forever contaminated (enriched?) by emotions, desires, past paths of thought, habits.

When Lear is told by his daughter cordelia that she loves him only as much as their bond requires, john may be particularly struck by that blunt message, as he lost a parent and never had a chance to voice his love. A vulnerable thought he never before realized he had.

These subconscious parts are all part of the true self. Since this can never be known completely, we are too complex, we can never know ourselves completely.

 

[RMQualtrough]

We are as much our subconsciousness as we are our consciousness.

As we also are our body and not just our thoughts.

The suggestion is the opposite. That you are neither your body nor your thoughts. You are that which knows them. You are that which knows my mind, and the mind of the bird on the tree outside your window, and any subconscious mind.

There is no human being with consciousness at all. Consciousness is what has humans. Humans are an object not subject. Thoughts and feelings are object not subject. You are the subject, which is consciousness alone.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The suggestion is the opposite. That you are neither your body nor your thoughts. You are that which knows them. You are that which knows my mind, and the mind of the bird on the tree outside your window, and any subconscious mind.

There is no human being with consciousness at all. Consciousness is what has humans. Humans are an object not subject. Thoughts and feelings are object not subject. You are the subject, which is consciousness alone.

I understand the suggestion and I disagree with it and have said a couple words as to why.

I do not see the value in relegating personhood solely to thoughts / consciousness.

What is the value of cutting subconsciousness, body and other aspects that make up people and relegating identity purely to thoughts?

 

[RMQualtrough]

I understand the suggestion and I disagree with it and have said a couple words as to why.

I do not see the value in relegating personhood solely to thoughts / consciousness.

What is the value of cutting subconsciousness, body and other aspects that make up people and relegating identity purely to thoughts?

I don't know about value, I just think it's true.

So, thoughts aren't what you are, thoughts appear to and inside of consciousness. Identity if you mean "what am I" then it's a layered question depending on what you identify with.

I would say that absolutely you are consciousness (emptiness, really) itself. The person however, is made of various facets. Some illusory, some real like your vision right now is a different perspective to mine. But absolutely we are both the consciousness which knows both.

Like a night watchman watching over a screen full of a bunch of little screens showing CCTV video of different areas of the site he's meant to protect. The selves we are, are like the CCTV cameras. Of course if we identify as the camera then my camera has a different viewpoint to yours.

But the screen contains all of these little separate screens/inputs. That screen upon which the images are all found is our true nature. The self would be the limited cameras producing one of many points of view.

It is possible to use the knowledge of the true self to better control emotions, to have more empathy for others, and various other things along those lines.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I don't know about value, I just think it's true.

So, thoughts aren't what you are, thoughts appear to and inside of consciousness. Identity if you mean "what am I" then it's a layered question depending on what you identify with.

I would say that absolutely you are consciousness (emptiness, really) itself. The person however, is made of various facets. Some illusory, some real like your vision right now is a different perspective to mine. But absolutely we are both the consciousness which knows both.

Like a night watchman watching over a screen full of a bunch of little screens showing CCTV video of different areas of the site he's meant to protect. The selves we are, are like the CCTV cameras. Of course if we identify as the camera then my camera has a different viewpoint to yours.

But the screen contains all of these little separate screens/inputs. That screen upon which the images are all found is our true nature. The self would be the limited cameras producing one of many points of view.

It is possible to use the knowledge of the true self to better control emotions, to have more empathy for others, and various other things along those lines.

I have difficulty even conceptually imagining what it would be like to experience life so disconnectedly from what is going on that I would descirbe it as monitoring cctv camera's.

I asked for the value of such a ivory tower perspective to your own being. But you rejecting that question leads me to presume that it wasn't a choice, but an inherent bias of yours, never examined.

As for how knowledge of true self would aid in being better disciplined in mind over matter is another mystery to me.

Perhaps that is my own bias, empathy comes overflowing. It never needs a nudge. And to better control emotions? Isn't that somewhat antithical to self-knowledge? To know what you feel might be just as much a path to listen better to what you feel as it may be to contain your passions.

This whole discussion, with how you're framing it, seems solipsistic to me. If I put myself in a perspective where I am talking about ME and talking about YOU, but not about the value of one path or another in a general sense for everyone who reads it, then it becomes kinda masturbatory, or something to be shared between friends rather than a public forum.

I wrote this post trying to see it from your perspective and reading it back I am annoyed with how valueless I find even my own thoughts, simply as a result of the personal perspective crap.

 

[RMQualtrough]

I have difficulty even conceptually imagining what it would be like to experience life so disconnectedly from what is going on that I would descirbe it as monitoring cctv camera's.

I asked for the value of such a ivory tower perspective to your own being. But you rejecting that question leads me to presume that it wasn't a choice, but an inherent bias of yours, never examined.

As for how knowledge of true self would aid in being better disciplined in mind over matter is another mystery to me.

Perhaps that is my own bias, empathy comes overflowing. It never needs a nudge. And to better control emotions? Isn't that somewhat antithical to self-knowledge? To know what you feel might be just as much a path to listen better to what you feel as it may be to contain your passions.

This whole discussion, with how you're framing it, seems solipsistic to me. If I put myself in a perspective where I am talking about ME and talking about YOU, but not about the value of one path or another in a general sense for everyone who reads it, then it becomes kinda masturbatory, or something to be shared between friends rather than a public forum.

I wrote this post trying to see it from your perspective and reading it back I am annoyed with how valueless I find even my own thoughts, simply as a result of the personal perspective crap.

I don't think you could experience life that way, only briefly during what are termed as "mystical experiences". You will always get lost in the dream. You will always get lost in this finite self which is very much real.

Nondual religion or philosophy is ALWAYS confused as being Solipsism and/or Nihilism, it isn't, that's an automatic interpretation when a person has not had an experience of no-self etc. I heard somewhere also that on "the path" many monks will face Solipsistic type crises, existential crises etc. which subsides but is very terrifying. I have had this twice (maybe three times) during moments of strong realization.

It isn't about there not being a you but about what you ACTUALLY are. You might fall asleep and dream you are some dude called Richard walking around London. But there is no Richard and no London just the mind of the dreamer. You are what saw through Richard's eyes and you were London. And when you wake you realize that the entire dream was mind observing mind. Use that as a pointer for the waking world. We are various viewpoints experienced by consciousness. The objects which appear are consciousness as a landscape is in a dream.

I only really value truth I don't value usefulness. Though I know that evidently a great number of people find use, so they release books about Zen type teaching for the average reader for self help etc. I have found use but I came to this idea solely and entirely because I think it is 100% correct. I only found the religious schools and teachers because I searched things relating to experience I had myself that led me to think this.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Nondual religion or philosophy is ALWAYS confused as being Solipsism and/or Nihilism, it isn't, that's an automatic interpretation when a person has not had an experience of no-self etc

I have found use but I came to this idea solely and entirely because I think it is 100% correct

I think it's pretty remarkable that the height of your attainment is finding a worldview that is based on "what I think is correct"

And then to dismiss my perspective and assume I have never had an experience of no self.

Here's a tip: everyone thinks their worldview is mostly correct. And those who think it is perfect inevitably have to divorce the world view from the chaos of practical challenges in everyday life.

There is nothing special about saying "I am 100% correct" and it isn't useful to anyone else. Why even share the thought at all? That isn't a rhetorical question.

 

[I Love Beef]

Um, I watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead the other day.

The only thing I got out of that was "All of Life Is But A Play" and "I think, therefore I am".

 

[Lemmingwise]

Um, I watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead the other day.

The only thing I got out of that was "All of Life Is But A Play" and "I think, therefore I am".

Better just watch hamlet next time.

 

[RMQualtrough]

I think it's pretty remarkable that the height of your attainment is finding a worldview that is based on "what I think is correct"

And then to dismiss my perspective and assume I have never had an experience of no self.

Here's a tip: everyone thinks their worldview is mostly correct. And those who think it is perfect inevitably have to divorce the world view from the chaos of practical challenges in everyday life.

There is nothing special about saying "I am 100% correct" and it isn't useful to anyone else. Why even share the thought at all? That isn't a rhetorical question.

Sorry, I am retarded so don't really understand what you mean, are you talking about the importance of usefulness as well as accuracy in a worldview?

I personally don't care about usefulness whatsoever, e.g. I could not possibly believe in heaven if I didn't think it was factually true, no matter how helpful the thought might be. And actually I don't believe in heaven or reincarnation. I also don't believe there are objective morals or any divine consequence to any action.

It is possible you are thinking of a worldview that would serve a purpose while I am trying to coldly state what I think is factually accurate divorced of purpose etc.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Sorry, I am retarded so don't really understand what you mean, are you talking about the importance of usefulness as well as accuracy in a worldview?

I personally don't care about usefulness whatsoever, e.g. I could not possibly believe in heaven if I didn't think it was factually true, no matter how helpful the thought might be. And actually I don't believe in heaven or reincarnation. I also don't believe there are objective morals or any divine consequence to any action.

It is possible you are thinking of a worldview that would serve a purpose while I am trying to coldly state what I think is factually accurate divorced of purpose etc.

First the question was about the view itself, but now I was speaking more of the usefulness of this discussion.

If your only argument for being right is "because it is 100% right to me", what value does the discussion have for anyone else?

In other words, what is the point of posting it here instead of in your diary?

For someone that thinks he has transcended the self, you sure do seem to start every single sentence with "I".

 

[RMQualtrough]

I am speaking more of the usefulness of this discussion.

If your only argument for being right is "because it is 100% right to me", what value does the discussion have for anyone else?

Oh I think I get you, I can speak at very great length as to why I think this is factually accurate. Though there are better teachers than me on YT who address materialism etc. I think mysticiam is better supported by logic and facts, otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

I also have a few books on Kindle on the topic dealing with materialism specifically.

I formed my own opinions, so it wasn't so much trying to find a religion to follow as it was having certain experiences myself and then trying to find people who could corroborate it or help me to understand what I went through. So in a way I don't like to blindly share YT vids in case I think they are wrong in parts.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Oh I think I get you, I can speak at very great length as to why I think this is factually accurate.

Somehow I don't doubt that.

Think I've given you benefit of the doubt long enough now.

I was thinking about asking give just one succint reason but you're probably just going to suck your own dick again about what a big brain you are.

 

[RMQualtrough]

Somehow I don't doubt that.

Think I've given you benefit of the doubt long enough now.

I was thinking about asking give just one succint reason but you're probably just going to suck your own dick again about what a big brain you are.

It's hard without writing absolute novels. But for one thing it is first and foremost to everything we have ever known or experienced. It is something we can be certain in the existence of... That we are aware... To rely on something we know for a fact exists to explain what we cannot know with absolute certainty is more real than a dream, is more logical than relying on something that is <100% certain to explain the ONLY thing we ever directly know and experience.

There would be one reason.

 

[Solid Snek]

Imagine there is an actor "John Smith" who plays the part of King Lear. He gets so into the role that he literally forgets he is John Smith and believes that he is King Lear.

He performs the play to a standing ovation.

A close friend goes backstage to congratulate him, and to his surprise finds him distraught. "Why are you so sad? The crowd loved you!" John Smith proceeds to lament about his betrayal at the hands of his three daughters.

His friend realizes that John Smith has completely forgotten who he is. "But you are not King Lear! Who were you before you were King Lear?" the friend asks. And they track back to before the casting of the role and eventually John Smith remembers: "AH! I was never King Lear. I was always John Smith!"

In the same way we must track back the character we think we are to know the true self. What are we truly? We have to go back before any identity because identity is built upon memory. We have to go before thought because thought is an object and we are the subject. When we strip away the identity of "I am Richard" or whatever, and enter the realm of pure thoughts, we can go deeper and look backwards behind even those thoughts and see that which precedes ALL things that we have ever known. And the ONLY thing through which we have ever known or experienced anything at all. And we say "AH! I was never this human being, I was always consciousness itself".

That's not really a relevant illustrating story though, is it? In the story, John Smith is John Smith. He is not "consciousness itself" or "a realm of pure thought" - rather, he is (and asserts himself to be, and according to the logic of the story, is in actual fact) an actor named John Smith.

What's more, if John Smith was to engage in this process of stripping aside identity in order to know his true self, is the self he finds really his true self, or is it just King Lear? An identity as consciousness is an identity, after all, and this identity may be authentic and primordial, or it may be new and constructed. How do we know which one it is? What makes you believe that Consciousness Smith is the "true self" identity and John Smith is merely the character he plays? Could it not be equally as valid to say that Consciousness Smith is simply a new role John that has undertaken, at your suggestion? One that is no more authentic, and possibly a great deal less authentic, than his role as John Smith?

It's an interesting thought experiment, but the link between the premise and the conclusion you want us to draw smacks of equivocation, and at best hinges on the idea that an identity which has been formed earlier is "more authentic" (why?) than one formed later. But that in itself leads us to problems, as for example, what if King Lear had been kidnapped as a baby, and raised as John Smith? He spends his entire life as John Smith, only to find out, well into adulthood, that his father was royalty, and he is the rightful ruler of the Kingdom of Britain. Is he actually King Lear, then? Even though he's lived his entire life as John Smith - has never been to Britain, has never lived in a castle, has never worn a crown or attended a meeting of the High Privy Council - does the fact that the identity of King Lear came before the identity of John Smith make the former more authentic than the latter? In what sense would this be true?

 

[RMQualtrough]

That's not really a relevant illustrating story though, is it? In the story, John Smith is John Smith. He is not "consciousness itself" or "a realm of pure thought" - rather, he is (and asserts himself to be, and according to the logic of the story, is in actual fact) an actor named John Smith.

What's more, if John Smith was to engage in this process of stripping aside identity in order to know his true self, is the self he finds really his true self, or is it just King Lear? An identity as consciousness is an identity, after all, and this identity may be authentic and primordial, or it may be new and constructed. How do we know which one it is? What makes you believe that Consciousness Smith is the "true self" identity and John Smith is merely the character he plays? Could it not be equally as valid to say that Consciousness Smith is simply a new role John that has undertaken, at your suggestion? One that is no more authentic, and possibly a great deal less authentic, than his role as John Smith?

It's an interesting thought experiment, but the link between the premise and the conclusion you want us to draw smacks of equivocation, and at best hinges on the idea that an identity which has been formed earlier is "more authentic" (why?) than one formed later. But that in itself leads us to problems, as for example, what if King Lear had been kidnapped as a baby, and raised as John Smith? He spends his entire life as John Smith, only to find out, well into adulthood, that his father was royalty, and he is the rightful ruler of the Kingdom of Britain. Is he actually King Lear, then? Even though he's lived his entire life as John Smith - has never been to Britain, has never lived in a castle, has never worn a crown or attended a meeting of the High Privy Council - does the fact that the identity of King Lear came before the identity of John Smith make the former more authentic than the latter? In what sense would this be true?

There's no John Smith either, it's a metaphor to illustrate our true self behind notions of identity.

If you would prefer, you might say you dream at night that you are Richard walking in London. You wake to realize neither Richard nor London were anything more than your own mind.

Consciousness is first and foremost what we are. That is our Am-ness. There is another self that we are which would be the ego self, and that would be the movie of memories which allows us to say my name is X, I'm Y years old, I was born in Z. And concepts about what makes us who we are. Which can be either good or bad... Some people build an identity around negative things. We feel this is something inescapable and core to our being. If we embarass ourselves once we may replay it over and over in our minds and attach thought to it "I am stupid", "I am boring". It is not the Am-ness I that could ever possibly be these things. It would actually be impossible for consciousness itself to be stupid, or boring, or anxious, or whatever.

And the inverse, some people may build an identity based around "I am better than others". But again it is actually not a possibility for consciousness itself to be good, or bad, or better than another, because it is empty and void in and of itself. The awareness of absence takes even time and space with it, we wake in the recovery room after general anaesthetic with no experience of unconsciousness. There is nothing TO consciousness but the awareness of object, right? So you can't build any solid ego identity that is truly real around that.

Richard might think he is kinder than Thomas or smarter than William. This is talking in terms of the observed mind. Richard Thomas and William are objects. What is the subject? The subject is what is aware of everything Richard about Richard: his thoughts, memories, emotions, sense input.