Thread: Dreams of Transcendence

As I've mentioned before, to varying degrees all of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm actively thinking and consciously present such as to think about the reality behind the images. Very few of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm projecting an experience of being in a body, seeing through that body's eyes, and actively manipulating the environment. For me, those kinds of dreams are typically less lucid in a 'transcendent' sense, since I would be putting more effort into the movie aspect of the dream. If the bear's head were one of my dreams, you wouldn't be able to judge the degree of lucidity from the image. I might also have a greater degree of lucid depth while remembering the dream than while having it. For example, an experience I described of looking at an island in a river was more lucid later while thinking about it than while actually doing it, and I got more of the deep content while reviewing the memory. That memory wasn't from a dream, but the same dynamic applies in either case. Probably the most lucid transcendent experience I've had was while awake, a being-conscious(ness)-bliss sort of thing. It lasted about an hour. I didn't do any particular meditation to bring it on, I was thinking in that direction and it happened, as if the experience was created around me from something greater than myself. I haven't had that particular experience since, though it has remained with me in a much weaker form. Also, just like what I've said about out-of-body experiences (I hate acronyms), I've had other analogous experiences that emphasized other areas of awareness.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

As I've mentioned before, to varying degrees all of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm actively thinking and consciously present such as to think about the reality behind the images.

Yes, but keep in mind that is a rare condition, and may not speak to common experience -- I believe that most dreamers, when dreaming non-lucidly, are unable to think about the reality behind an image, because their reduced memory "confirms" for them that everything in the dream is real. Most people establish the nature of their dreams after they wake up, and I was using commonality as the norm... there are always exceptions to the rule.

Very few of my dreams are lucid in the sense that I'm projecting an experience of being in a body, seeing through that body's eyes, and actively manipulating the environment. For me, those kinds of dreams are typically less lucid in a 'transcendent' sense, since I would be putting more effort into the movie aspect of the dream.

Curious view of lucidity, I think. I personally never have a dream body during mid-level to full-on LD's; as a matter of fact, if I'm "projecting an experience of being in a body, seeing through that body's eyes," I know I'm not fully aware yet. Lucidity is not about that -- or necessarily even about manipulating the dream environment, especially in the context of this thread. So, I think that the experience you are having (no dream body; putting effort into the movie aspect) is likely more lucid than not, and certainly more conducive to witnessing transcendent moments -- is that what you meant?

If the bear's head were one of my dreams, you wouldn't be able to judge the degree of lucidity from the image. I might also have a greater degree of lucid depth while remembering the dream than while having it. For example, an experience I described of looking at an island in a river was more lucid later while thinking about it than while actually doing it, and I got more of the deep content while reviewing the memory. That memory wasn't from a dream, but the same dynamic applies in either case.

But does it? If you are experiencing an event that has no human reference for understanding, wouldn't the experience itself be much different -- much more pure -- than a later interpretation of it, specifically because you were able, after the fact, to find or invent a metaphor that "explains" what happened, and disregard anything that still doesn't make sense? It may have become more lucid later, but the awareness you attach later runs the risk of affectation -- you might "intuit" things that were not part of the event, simply because they make the event work better for you that way. And how you make that intuition is based not on the "transcendent" moment, but on similar moments experienced by you and anyone else your memory can tap. I think this happens a lot in regular dream recall, by the way.

Probably the most lucid transcendent experience I've had was while awake, a being-conscious(ness)-bliss sort of thing. It lasted about an hour. I didn't do any particular meditation to bring it on, I was thinking in that direction and it happened, as if the experience was created around me from something greater than myself. I haven't had that particular experience since, though it has remained with me in a much weaker form. Also, just like what I've said about out-of-body experiences (I hate acronyms), I've had other analogous experiences that emphasized other areas of awareness.

That is of course a wonderful thing, and sure, transcendental experiences are not confined to dreams. What I am saying here is that the condition of awareness necessary for LD'ing might be just the tool to finally witness and appreciate transcendental events -- any time they occur: that condition of awareness can certainly, ought to, be enjoyed during waking life. It's not the dream that's novel here, it's the state of mind.