Don't waste your time analyzing the content of your dreams. Aim instead for gaining control over the general situation. The visions in dreams dissipate too quickly; this is the problem. The goal is to be able to hold whatever image presents itself and examine it in detail.

This is perfectly possible and once accomplished you will be surprised to learn how similar the DMT experience and dreaming are.

The ultimate goal here is to bring 'the awareness gained through interaction with reality' or life experience to bear witness to what happens in dreams. Normally this awareness is sleeping while we dream and thus we have no rational faculties to guide any kind of meaningful activity in the dreaming state.

To me the dreaming state can be adequately (though not very accurately) described as dis-embodied awareness, which is just too cliche for the nexus crowd.

To remember yourself when dreaming is the great feat. Just imagine being able to sit down and contemplate existence while dreaming. Or to watch time as it unfolds over aeons. The scope of what can be perceived there makes DMT seem just a little bit pale. And best yet, it's 100% natural.

Think about it,

-f

P.S. Seriously though, what did you think dreams are for? Especially in light of the DMT experience and the vast possibilities that are unveiled (but not unlocked) in that state.

Hi fwaggle, i would say your definition of dreaming is fair, however i think its incomplete, because dreaming is more than just the experience, it is also the wave signature in the brain which enables us to inhibit thought and for consciousness to move outside the body. Perhaps even outside of time-space.

I believe dreaming has many roles, to do with fear and anxiety regulation, body repair, memory formation but also to have a safety line back to our higher conscious mind/spirit/soul/reality. I think that part of us requires a regular reality kick, which is like a phone call into the dreamstate/hyperspace.
but thats probably just me

Hello DiMiTree,

Modern man's huge misconception is the insistence that we are first a physical body and everything else is secondary to it, even consciousness, which modern science claims is "created" by the brain, whatever that means.

My contention is that we are awareness before anything else.

Kind regards,

-f

I wonder if this isn't something like the chicken-or-the-egg question. Matter and awareness seem to me to be inseparably interwoven and dependant on each other. Perhaps neither of them comes before the other.
Just a thought

Enoon

Hi Enoon,

I'd like to point out that your logic is sound but it stems from an understanding of the world based on language.

You see, words and meaning appear to us as "inseparably interwoven and dependant on eachother" as well, right?

This is exactly where the crack between the worlds appears. Just think about how 'meaning' can exist independant of words. How knowledge can be independent of language. The doorway is guaranteed to appear at this point. Just think about it a little. (Mescaline can really help with this.)

-f

I'm not trying to press my logic onto you. In fact I'm not arguing logic here at all. What I have come to see more and more, for myself, and granted this seems to be only a perspective - one out of many possible ones - is that all things are interconnected and affecting each other. The observer seems inseparable from *reality* and vice versa; consciousness seems inseparable from the interactions of matter, and thus from matter itself. The mind seems inseparable from the body.... We seem to always want to cut things up into sub-units, rather than looking at things in a more integral manner, rather than looking at them on the whole. Both perspectives of course are valid. I just like to think of everything as a gigantic network these days, rather than separate parts. The universe with all it's content, I see as a co-evolving and co-emerging phenomenon.

cheers
Enoon

The mind is in no way separate from the physical body.

The crux of the matter is this: The physical body is made of awareness. This is an indisputable fact as far as I can see and it is indispensable for understanding ourselves.

Everything that exists in all of the cosmos is made of the prima-materia: awareness.

In the course of our lives we mold this raw awareness into what we call reality. DMT removes this social mold and awareness becomes free to a certain extent.

-f

arguing semantics, I would like to ask - what is your definition of awareness, and could one not equally conclude that everything that exists in all of the cosmos is really just energy interactions? Or something else even... Isn't it really just a matter of what you call it? Even if an atom is made of awareness, surely that doesn't mean it shares the same complexity or ability to self-reflect as we do? so what do you mean by awareness?

And no DMT in my experience and opinion does not DO anything specific. I could not put my finger on any one thing it does. It's like energy in a way (to me), it can be used for a myriad of things, it can be refined and used constructively or it can be raw and chaotic, it can be destructive... it really seems to depend on everything else... inseparable from its context.

Such a simple question is truly one of the most difficult to answer but I'll give it a shot and if I end up rambling forgive me.

Eyes have awareness. Within the sphere of the eyes' awareness there is primarily light and darkness which is to say awareness as opposed to non-awareness.

And yet, within the sphere of the mind's awareness even the above-mentioned non-awareness or darkness is registered as awareness. For the eyes darkness is lack of stimuli and hence non-perception. For the mind darkness is just another "thing" among an infinity of things that it can perceive.

To be aware of your thoughts is another example. The awareness preceeds the thoughts themselves.

Now the big one I think is that we are aware of ourselves. So the awareness must have come before the self, no?
I mean if "myself" is just an item among items that can be perceived by the mind and the senses then how can I be something that I perceive? I am the perception, the awareness. Not the thing perceived.

Sorry if this is incoherent,

-f

maybe you are both? The perceived and the perciever and the perception itself. Who's to say they can't be the same thing? Why do you state *The awareness preceeds the thoughts themselves* ? There seems to be no reason to conclude this. The thought and the awareness could be both arising as one, emerging patterns from the complexity of the interactions of matter and biological structures in our body-mind-complex. Not saying it's true, but this is also an option, as far as I can tell. I see nothing in your statements that would make me infer or conclude what you conclude... Perhaps I am missing something, or else you have not stated your argument clearly?


Personally I don't think eyes have awareness that is comparable to what we call self-awareness. Eyes are just biological light-detectors. They don't even interpret the light they receive. These higher-order functions are performed by other parts of the human being. But without the eye none of it would be perceived so they are an integral and essential part of the seeing-mechanism. But so is the visual center in the brain, and so is the interpreter ego-part of you that uses the visual information (not really sure on the mechanisms of the brain here... just talking endo-empirical-psychology). And the awareness maybe exists as a meta-structure overlaying all of these *parts* interacting with one another... who knows though really...

I think we can safely conclude that existence is more intricate and more complex than the human mind could ever hope to grasp, especially scientifically.

The scope of what we can experience is far beyond the mind's analytical capabilities. I don't think there's ever any hope of enlightenment through words and so this debate can't really ever reach a conclusion anyway.

It's the ride that's fun though, not the conclusion of the ride.

-f

When you say something like “The scope of what can be perceived there makes DMT seem just a little bit pale” you should qualify the statement. You could have said, more precisely, “My DMT experiences seem a bit pale beside my lucid dreaming experiences”.

Since words do not come close to adequately describing the DMT experience, you don’t and can’t know what the experience is like for others. I can say for myself that DMT experiences are nothing like dreams, including lucid dreams. For me, there are no experiences that would lead me to say my DMT experiences “seem just a little bit pale” beside them.

In my experience so far, there seems to be no limit to how far and deep one can go with DMT. Your statement suggests that you haven’t gone very deep yet. You've barely scratched the surface.

Gilbran , while I agree with you generally, I would just like to suggest a change in your wordings.. How about instead of "you've barely scratched the surface", you could say something like "to me it seems you've barely scratched the surface" ?

First of all, I'm not talking about lucid dreaming, which is like a dead-end street. This is different.

And secondly, to fully awaken in dreaming is in no way comparable to DMT because you cannot live in the DMT state. Whereas the dreaming state becomes your waking state; it becomes life.

Dreaming is the real deal while DMT is like reading about it. ie. DMT can only give you a glimpse of the "elves." And you can NEVER be in control with DMT. With dreaming you own the show. The elves and everything else becomes nothing.

Obviously I can never prove any of this rationally and you should not expect such a thing anyway. None of this even needs proving if you experience it rather than think about it or think how to disprove it offhand so you won't have to think about it.

It is fine that you don't believe. Once I used to believe that objects were the only real thing that exists in the world as opposed to everything else which was fantasy. Now I know I was an idiot.

-f

fwaggle.. Stop talking in absolutes please.. Dont come to a website dedicated to DMT where people have had years and years of experience with these substances and tell us what DMT is or what it isnt.. Speak for yourself, say "it seems to me", or "to me DMT only provides such and such experience". But do not talk about as if you know the Objective Reality, unless you want to come out sounding arrogant, immature and inexperienced. Personally I dont want to think that of you, I want to think you are a reasonable person and just arent wording yourself well and are actually aware that this is simply your way of looking at it.

So please, think twice how you word yourself...

Well of course everything that I say is my point of view. This is implied as I am the one saying it. No?

I think the real issue is that you are uncomfortable and distrustful of me. What do you think I'm trying to do? Spread blasphemy? heh.

-f

P.S. Your years of experience with DMT are great, really. But I come from a background of generations of this game; a few years can hardly teach a man anything.

I am uncomfortable that you speak in absolutes, yes.. Do you not see the difference in coming to this forum and spilling out all sorts of affirmations about what "dmt is", instead of more humbly expressing what "dmt seems to you" ? How we word ourselves and use language affects not only the message we are passing (explicit and implicit), but also it affects how we think. I suggest you look into E-Prime.

I am not "distrustful" of you because I have no interest in trusting or distrusting you, frankly I dont care, as long as you respect the forum's attitude.... For all I know everybody could have a life-changing experience any day or an amazing insight that suddenly makes them very conscious people, so I do not believe in judging others as individuals. All I can talk is about specific acts, knowing that acts are not people. And right now, the way you are acting is bothering me because of the way you express yourself, hence my (hopefully) constructive criticism

PS: I wasnt talking about my years of experience, I was talking about the community in general and your confrontational attitude.. It doesnt matter one bit how much experience I have or havent or what family/background I come from (that would just be ego game to use as arguments in this context), my point stands either way

Ok I accept. But if this is all you have against me (grammar) then the extreme hostility on this forum is definitely out of line, in my opinion.

I fully understand that our views are vastly different; even more so than I had guessed. But is this really sufficient reason to ostracize someone? Or could it be that you guys think I'm here bullshitting you and myself and everyone else?

-f

P.S. I am not concerned with ego. By background I mean that I've not learned most of what I'm saying on my own. It was taught to me and then I corroborated it, witnessed it so to speak.

Please point out any quote from me where I was ostracizing you or being extremely hostile.... Im open to offer an apology and re-phrase myself if that is the case.

and looking at other's responses to you I would say people are actually being incredibly patient and reasonable despite your attitude.

If you feel any specific quote bothered you, go ahead and show it and argue sensibly with others, people here are pretty open to reasonable arguments.

And no, what I have against you has nothing to do with grammar, I think you should re-read my words to hopefully get the meaning..

That's Ok. Let's forget this nonsense. I'd much rather be debating the nature of awareness.

-f