Why the same dream?

[egodust]

Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:
>
> Allan Curry (Re Who^Òs dream is it?) once asked an interesting question (on
> Thu, 30 Oct 1997) that comes very to the point here:
>
> ^ÓIt is enjoyable to contemplate the totality whirling around composing our
> entire existence. If this were true, I suppose everyone *would* be exactly
> the same in the way all characters in a book are equally "composed".
> But what about those characters in the book who supposedly know they are
> mere characters in the book?
>
> Are they *still* just characters *in* the book and is their "knowledge"
> still as totally composed as any other part of the book? If that is so,
> then enlightenment and unenlightenment would be on the same ontological
> level, but perhaps that *is* the point, when it's said "there is only one
> thing (ie. consciousness)" ?  Is that right?^Ô
>
> Seen from the re-phrased Thesis B, this question should be answered Yes.
> But then all these characters would have absolutely the same value, whether
> enlightened or not. There would be no difference at all between having
> lived as a Stalin or as  a Samkara. You would be in no position to say that
> meditation is better than murdering children. All the sages^Ò wise words
> would not be any worthier than my dog^Òs barks. After all, everything would
> just be part of the same dream.

Yes, the apparent differences only exist relatively.  Remember, there are
no real, independent doers at any time, whether the belief exists that there
are or not.  There was never any snake in existence.  And suffering through
its appearance--even from the temporal perspective--will eventually dissolve
and lose its sensational impact.

Namaste.

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust