God as the Mirror of Myself

Picture taken from this site

One of the most fundamental distinctions related to oneiric personalism is the distiction between Dreamer and the person I am in this particular dream called life.

As the person I am in this (dream)world, I turn myself over to my Creator, God. Nevertheless, I know that I am this Creator, I am Dreamer.  As Dreamer I am not present in my dream, I cannot “see” myself, therefore I need a mirror.

God – the Absolute of this (dream)world – is the mirror I seek.

God and Dreamer are two “aspects” of the Absolute, they have the very same “nature”, the only difference here is the direction of ontological relations: the (dream)world is related to me (as to Dreamer), yet I am (as the person in this dream) related to God – together with the whole (dream)world.


Oneiric Personalism and The Ontological Barrier


ontological barrier

The walking life is just a dream – this sentence is often repeated by persons who claim to be spiritually awakened, but it is pretty paradoxical, because it states that life is as unreal as dreams, yet dreams could be called unreal only in comparison to something more real – namely to life.

How to claim that there is an essential similarity between the walking life and dreams, and to avoid this paradox?

My dreams and my walking life could be called ontologically similar (existing in a similar manner), when they are placed on the same side of the ontological barrier – dividing pure, absolute Being from changing beings (all of them are not entirely real). The “ontological distance” between pure Being and life (this world) is infinitely bigger that the “ontological distance” between dreams and life [as explained on the picture above].

In other words: to awaken spiritually means in this case: to recognize one’s own divine nature.

All my dreamworlds and my walking life are vusmeyans [link].

The absolute Being might be called Dreamer – in a metaphorical sense (because It is not an organism).

Oneiric Personalism and the Existence of God

Picture taken from this site

The existence of God is as obvious as the existence of my Self (the Dreamer of the world).

An attempt to prove the existence of God is a misunderstanding, because the existence of God is a precondition of proving anything.

God is neither personal nor non-personal, neither this nor that, God just Is.

An attempt to define being is a misunderstanding, because existence is a precondition of defining anything.

Nevertheless, the existence of God has no ethical consequences.

The Purpose of Talking About Oneiric Personalism

Picture taken from this site

Why do I write about oneiric personalism? What is the purpose of telling other persons that the whole world is just my dream?

If Dreamer had now only one dream – of being a person, Marcin Dolecki, then my considerations would be just for fun, they would be merely a petty, innocent game.

However, world could be a net of many dreams. If Dreamer had now more simultaneous dreams – of being different persons in many of them, then there might be advantages of talking to other people about these issues.

I cannot know, which of these options is true, because I only know my dreams – that of Marcin Dolecki.

Even if the aforementioned net existed, its structure would not be cognizable.


Oneiric Personalism as an Attempt to Reconcile Two Approaches to the Issue of Divinity

Picture taken from this site

As the person I am in my dream, one of the elements of a dreamworld, I am in a relation to the Creator of this dreamworld, God.

On the other hand, the whole dreamworld is in a relation to me as to Dreamer, the Creator.

These both relations are the same, their directions is the only difference here: the first one is directed “from me” while the second one –  “towards me”.

My walking life is similar to my dreams, so these considerations could be also referred to it.

God and Dreamer are two “aspects” of the Absolute.

According to one of the interpretations, God could be called the absolute object, Dreamer – the absolute subject.

They could be compared to two sides of the same coin.

The aim of this considerations is an attempt to reconcile two approaches to the issue of divinity: the belief that I am a God’s creature (traditional in Western countries) with the belief in my own divine nature (traditional in India, especially according to advaita vedanta).

They are only apparently contradictory, in fact, they complement each other.