The Great Symphony

This is a sequence of dream and interpretation posted on https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/The_Dream_Catcher/. It began with my dream.
The earliest written music is being rehearsed in a large gothic church or cathedral. It’s very light with lots of sunlight casting patterns & colours of the windows on the floor. The piece is, or begins with, the chords G Em G A. I am in an organ loft while it is played by an orchestra in the nave below. I have a score but it is indecipherable. However having heard it rehearsed I figure the chords. The conductor stops the orchestra to complain that theyre not nearly loud enough so I pull out all the stops (which are arranged in a very strange way in little groups all around the organ cabinet) & join in with full organ when they start again. I play a wrong note in the pedal but luckily the conductor is too busy correcting the orchestra to bother with me.

It felt very exhilarating to combine successfully at full blast since organs are normally a played solo (I am, or was, and organist) even if I made a slight slip. Why is the conductor (the facilitator) remote? Evidently not integrated, tho he has the ability to ‘orchestrate’ the whole thing.
Guy Huntington replied to a further comment:
I am an energy soul who inhabits a body and not a body that has a soul.  There is a difference.  If we are souls who inhabit bodies than we exist at other energy vibrations at the same time as we lower them to occupy our bodies. This is a very different perspective from folks who think their body is the main vehicle and that they have a soul that is freed after death.

I am also being taught that we carefully construct our personalities before we incarnate.  We effectively wear “belief suits” that filter our reality and “creates” our version of reality.  These suits effectively make us forget who we really are.  Somewhat ironically, we then spend each incarnation struggling to recall who we are.  That’s the point of the earth plane we live on. It’s like a gigantic test lab for ourselves to learn about choices we make.

Dreams play a big role in this.  They continually let us know who we are i.e. the spiritually “bigger” us.  From my perspective, we come from our dreams.  We occupy many different universes simultaneously.  Our ideas, creativity and modelling probable realities all occur in our dream state.  

Regarding music, Paul Mccartney woke up one day with the song “Yesterday” all composed in his mind.  He had to create the words BUT the music was all there.  In my perspective, he choose a set of beliefs to create his personality where he was more “in tune” with himself!  He would let music creativity flow through him from the other vibrational levels to his physical self. 

My take is that many people have very “narrow” or “tight” or “restricted” belief filters that effectively block out most connections with their greater self. They then are left to sort of wander around the dreamscape trying to make sense of it.  These folks interpret their reality from their physical bodies point of view.  AND, it is a a TRUE REALITY for them since that’s what their belief filters produce.

So, from my perspective, music, creativity et al comes from our dreams.  There we play, create, test out realities, etc. What we recall from our dreams is limited by the “belief suits” each of us is wearing.  
To which I responded
Guy¹s comment is one of the most concise, coherent and meaning-full summaries of ultra-consciousness I've read. I've lived my life as what (for want of a better description) might be called an intellectual visionary, a person of faith who is also an intense rationalist. I¹m a scorpio: my blessing/curse that I always have to know why.

After nearly 30 years studying my dreams I am convinced they are Œthe missing manual¹ supplied at birth, but cast aside during the acquisition of conceptual skills. If we can master what Marie-Louise von Franz calls 'the puzzling Chinese nonsense' we can learn to return to the perceptual language of our birth, and throu reenter mystical union with all-that-is.

As a meditative exercise recently I made my own version of the Tao. And #28 is a  relevant paragraph.
Wood grows as a natural resource:
when cut it can be transformed into objects, tools, paper.
The intelligent see the underlying unity of all matter and make use of its many forms, without attributing uniqueness to any one manifestation.
When we accept nature on its own terms the great circle is complete.
But that isn't what made me write this response. It is that despite intense skepticism I am driven increasingly by cumulative events & my own half-memories to accept the truth of the cardinal principle Guy articulates. If we have come to feel clearly that the universe is not a morally neutral space (by which I mean to say it is zoophilic, it nurtures animate life) and that there is both a unifying principle and evidence of a creative dynamic which manifests in twin channels, evolution and love, then to me it makes complete sense that the Consciousness which it embodies would also have provided a means to decode our relationship with our existential environment. 
But I also believe that this Power is Œ'dumb'. It exists as a molten stratum of Mind, like our unconscious, which lacks the power of differentiation and articulation, and can only manifest in the material world throu animate lifeforms. And thus like we humans can only truly come to know itself by the reflexion others feed back to it ­ be that by affirmation or indifference. It is in this sense that we are co-creators of the universe: for if we feed back affirmation (what used to be called worship) we give rise to positive energy ­ as-it-were solar radiation ­ in our environment; whereas if we feed back indifference or hostility we are diminishing that very Power which could alleviate the very isolation we assert. (Isn't it interesting that self-absorption is actually like the energy of a dark hole preventing the emission of light?)

In a work-in-progress about Dreaming and Consciousness I've written this: 
The Inner Otherness is Œthat of God within¹, the radioactive core within the psyche over which the Ego can never claim ownership. It is also the Œ'not-I' at our deepest point wherein lies our intuitional link to all that is beyond rational understanding.
Also to be observed within this sphere are the subconscious roots of the Ego, which is commonly call the Soul, described by Jung as the (true) Self. Much that is problematic in a person¹s conscious life has its origins in unacknowledged disharmony between these components of the deep unconscious.
The Mundaka Unpanishad (c.1000BC) depicts the relationship between these elements of our bicameral consciousness as being like two birds sitting on the same branch, one attracted to bright objects in its surroundings, the other content to express itself throu song. Thus we have an image of the  characteristic that separates homo sapiens from all but its closest genetic relatives: the competing demands of inner & outer-directed perception. Many writers see life¹s big issue as being the encounter each of us faces (or avoids) between the ego /I and the inner otherness, the 'not-I' from which alone can flow an authentic and harmonious balance between them.
I agree with Guy, the ego comes with the body: it¹s the Œintel inside¹ that
coordinates and manages the vehicle in which the true I (what Jung called
the Self) reposes for its earthly transit. Hence the number of dreams about
motion in the many forms of conveyance we know today. The more one
penetrates the symbolic language of dream the more one has a sense of
soul-experience not being limited to a single lifetime or a single
Id like to conclude this far-too-long email with an extraordinary passage
from Book 4. Chapter 3 of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad c.4500BC. The word
Brhadaranyaka means literally Œdeep forest¹; by which one is to understand
that it embodies an esoteric wisdom appropriate to those who have
differentiated themselves from the common herd, but also as an Upanishad, or
song of praise, that it should turn meditatively in the mind, mindful of the
great Mind by whom it was inspired.

No comments: