The First Earth-souls in the Dreamworld

Your assumption that the first earth-visiting souls would prefer the worlds of uninterrupted bliss to those of experience, together with the assumption that "escape" was a valid reason for the dream, both onstitute a very human set of assumptions. And they would work, and be correct, with ordinary human beings. But we are talking about nonphysical souls, whose patterns might be very different.

As nonphysical souls, they were able to explore a very wide spectrum of distractions, games, learning-agendas, lessons, and other pursuits. And though these are called "games" to imply that they were virtual realities (or dreams), we should not misinterpret these souls as spoiled and bored "brats" without depth, who wanted nothing but to kill time.

Most of the virtual programs, including the earth, were highly educational. Many, such as earth's, allowed them to explore various kinds of sensory systems that, as nonphysical entities, they did not enjoy in their everyday lives.

hese souls did indeed spend much time in bliss and other highly elevated, even some mystical, states. We cannot assume that they sought only "escape" from "boredom," as human beings so often do. No, instead, what they most sought was sheer variety. They were expert "psychonauts," and were intensely intent on exploring every nook and cranny, every cave and sea, of Mind and consciousness. So, they dreamed up innumerable realities, each very "real" while you were "in" it. Earth was only one of literally millions of experimental realities; but, being only a minor player, earthlife attracted only a few billion souls. (Other realities ttracted trillions, or quadrillions. These were analogous to blockbusters.)

The framework of this account, its basic matrix, was indicated, but not learly explained, in the altered state [mystical experience]. The blanks (details) had to be filled in later, but it did synergize with the gnosis experience. It "fit the data, lock-and-key." I really believe hat this is how it all occurred, but this does not have the status of "divine revelation," as that term is usually understood. But this "fleshing out" was a perfect fit for the "skeletal matrix" revealed during the mystical experience. No "infallibility" or "unquestionability" is claimed for these speculations.

They are more than guesses, more than hypotheses, but do not rise as high as "revelations."

The mystic does not see the world in such "black and white" fashion. The cosmos of Mind is extraordinarily complicated, intricate, and involved. So, when we discuss mysticism, we must make some extraordinarily fine distinctions, even if they are not convenient to the usual ways of thinking. The necessary distinction between "relatively real" and "absolutely real" is not arbitrary.

The mystic would be denying all of science to say that the world is "unreal," as might well be inferred from the ancient Sanskrit word maya, "illusion." But she does not really believe the world to be an illusion in the sense of a hallucination. She knows the world of everyday, ordinary life to be real. To deny its reality might make one appear to lean towards mental disorder. But we also need a convenient way of expressing that, although it is real, this world does not represent pure Mind. It is not "absolutely" real. So, the use of these two phrases --"relative" reality and "absolute" reality-- is a kind of shorthand compromise with the limitations of language. It is to clarify.:) Complex ideas cannot always fit within the limiting "straight-jacket" of "black-and-white" thinking. It's really that simple, and that complex!

In good and thorough philosophy, as you so well know, philosophers often have to make distinctions, and even definitions, that are sometimes non-traditional.

When you enter the deep waters of mystical philosophy, the distinction between "relative" and "absolute" reality is an intrinsic and necessary part of the argument. Mystics would say that the description of reality should not be compromised for convenience, or because we don't like the language. The bad news is, as long as we choose to share thoughts about Reality, these distinctions will have to continue; the good news is that they can be quite easily and readily understood: Only Mind is absolute; everything else is relative.:)

The cosmos does indeed contain graduations or increments of "reality" that do not conform easily to "black and white" distinctions, "either-or" thinking. If we are going to discuss the fine gradients of Mind, we must discuss this issue.

Of course, we must always be careful with generalizations, especially as we get into the more profound mental "worlds" of virtuality or dreaming. think of the argument, "all ducks have flat feet; my brother has flat feet; Meet my brother the duck!" Of course, you know about such snares, and have studied them more profoundly than I.

But the claim that a dream is real is different from the claim that the objects of that dream are real. If I dream that I find a box of gold coins, that dream is real. But I had better not try to sell the coins!

So, mystics do claim that the dream of this world is true, but that the objects of the dream are ultimately illusion. (Note the careful use of the adjective "ultimately." For even the objects of the d-world are d-real* within the dream. But they are not r-real.* If someone shoots a r-mystic with a d-rifle, r-she will likely d-die. Things are r-d-real within the d-dream, and this d-world is where we must live, at least, for the d-time-being. So, we have r-agreed, at a very deep r-level of r-Mind, to d-play by the d-rules of the d-game. R-Mystics cannot, for this d-reason, violate the d-scientific d-laws that govern the d-material and d-external world. There is nothing r-arbitrary or r-relative about this r-contract with r-Mind, or between r-Mind and d-mind.

I would love nothing better than to conform to your "either-or" thinking and give you a simple answer. But, alas, there is none. For we are really r-distinct from God on the level of the r-conscious d-mind. But, at other r-levels, we are not "distinct" in the sense of being altogether separate." when you take a drop of water out of the ocean, that drop is distinct as long as you have it in the dropper. But put it back in the sea, and it loses its distinction. When our d-boundaries disappear into r-Love, the same kind of event occurs. Both drop and ocean share the nature of water. And both we and God share the nature of Mind. Within the context of this d-world, we almost always take the form of d-ego-identity, social identity. But this d-"drop" can r-disappear, in an altered r-state, at any given d-moment.

*The d- before a word indicates that it is real only within the dreamworld. The r- before a word indicates that it has, or shares in, absolute Reality.
*******