“You Are Dreaming That You Are Unenlightened. You Are Dreaming That You Are Awake”

“Enlightenment was in your coffee cup
before you poured in the coffee.
Now it’s in your coffee cup.
Two point two billion years
before your coffee cup was created,
Enlightenment was in your coffee cup.
An hour and fifteen minutes
after time swallows the universe,
Enlightenment will be in your coffee cup.
You’ve always known where it is
because it’s exactly where you left it.
How can you not return to a place you never left?
You are dreaming that you are unenlightened.
You are dreaming that you are awake.”

This Jed’s poem expresses EXACTLY what is, and isn’t. The only problem in it is the word ‘enlightenment’. It creates an instant reference to mysticism, ancient temples, images of far away lands where people used to think about enlightenment much, and where the largest number of texts on the subject was written (and there is a good reason why the East specifically). Oh.. and creatures with aura, beads, white flowing cloaks and exotic names for those who are just at the start of climbing the ladder.

And most of all – hope that one can become free from ‘suffering’ (aka, this world, in non-spiritually denominational language).

This is the reason why the most successful spiritual ‘teachers’ bear adopted Eastern names: it draws in the crowd, yes, but also on a deeper level our spiritual teachers are not free from the Eastern Enlightenment paradigm. It still prominently features as part of their  deep subconscious conditioning. I mean… Adyashanti instead of Steven Gray? Adi Da instead of Franklin Jones? Mooji instead of Anthony Moo-Young? Wei Wu Wei instead of Terence Gray?


Don’t deny it: human minds work on creating associations, and those connections were built into our thinking by culture ever before you took a conscious interest in the subject. We absorb ideas, ideals, concepts, images UNCONSCIOUSLY. Every day. Without noticing. The process is subtle, by the time you are ten – you are already a walking library of unexamined assumptions. And sure, at ten one cannot yet examine much consciously, but the damage had been done, deep seated and hard to weed out. Why do you think so many of you are struggling with dropping the lens?

I simply got lucky. Communism was ideology, not faith; no one believed shit about it, but collectively pretended that they did, for ease of existence. There was no religion or any enlightenment philosophy to get oneself wrapped up in, and I was too young to look for anything.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA One types the word ‘consciousness’ into the image search and gets assaulted by a gazillion surreal images: stars, rays, twinkles, cosmic clouds, chaps in contorted poses, alien looking faces, Magellan galaxy and so on, all mostly in blue and purple. Fog and puke alright..  I remember being young, and some badly copied sheets on yoga being passed around. There was a photo of this dude in one copy, took me awhile to locate it online, it’s a pretty old image. I thought then “Shit! Look at his toenails! The man is off his rocker”. Notice that I didn’t question the validity of the picture; I simply assumed it was true and called it crazy. And the point is not whether this was true. The point is – I DIDN’T QUESTION the picture then.

But later – I did. I went in with conditioning ONLY from the secular world, without  religious bullshit, and it wasn’t too hard to break down the barriers once the wheels were set in motion.

And so that you know…. the lotus flower is a weed here, grows in every dirty pond, and ponds here ARE filthy. From faeces to worship…. how telling.

A long time ago Jed also laughed at enlightenment. Then his eyes opened, and he saw clearly WHY he was laughing. The poem is a good expression of this understanding. ‘Enlightenment’ in it is a metaphor for Reality, and sure, one hour after time swallows Universe – Reality will remain. It may look different after the Sun engulfs the Earth, and you will be long gone, but Reality, the world – will remain FOREVER. Just ponder this ‘forever’ and its significance. Compare it to your own little fucked up mental state. How significant is that in the grand scheme of things?

Reality is in your coffee cup, because it IS, exists, and only that which exists – is true. Enlightenment (Reality) was in your coffee cup 2.2 million years ago because Reality existed then even when you and your coffee – did not.

The untrue has no real existence, cannot be touched, verified, proved as real, because one can never prove a negative statement as real. If I say ‘You don’t exist’, your mind will respond ‘WTF?? because it cannot prove this negation as true. Here is your mind loop, the one that has been driving humans in circles.

But you KNOW that you exist, without proof. You don’t need proof to know that. Some things are simply self-evident, i.e. – evident to self.

As for You are dreaming that you are unenlightened. You are dreaming that you are awake.”This is a statement that neither of those two (unenlightened versus awake) are true, correct. This is a statement on non-existence of Enlightenment.

Your imagination (‘dreaming’) gives the notion of ‘enlightenment’ life and existence.

Blue Header


38 thoughts on ““You Are Dreaming That You Are Unenlightened. You Are Dreaming That You Are Awake”

      1. I think, it is a GREAT question, actually. Thinking more about it, it kind of suggests the idea that — there are many people (like me) — who are ‘outside the dream’ — of ‘being or becoming enlightened’ (marketplace consumers) — and are The Most Unfortunate Ones (I have seen a few in my time — ) who are like Mirza Ghalib (a old Indian Poet), and those — who find almost No One to even ‘confirm’ to them that they are not Insane (as everyone in their community believes), but are ‘unconsciously enlightened’, so to speak.

      2. what i mean is that the way i see it, whatever expression there is, it is only an expression, existence is only an expression, be it with an origin enlightened or not. so enlightened or not enlightened it’s the same dream.reality.org

    1. I think, zexe6zexe, just my own personal view, I don’t much know about the terms you are using – but I can say this much from personal life experience. Enlightened, or not, dreaming or awake, we all wake up in the morning, go to the bathroom, and get on with our days.
      That’s just one part of the picture.

      There is also an ‘intellectual’ part. You are talking about that part.

      The one that gets enlightened (if there is such a thing), is ALREADY ‘outside’ – the dream of being enlightened.

      Where else could that ‘one’ be?
      And, whenever – you – that is, zexe6zexe (please consider making the name simple or easier to type, though I can type for very long easily but still, it just gives a more personal touch to type a person’s name rather than ‘whatever’) – becomes ‘enlightened’ – would it not BY Definition mean that ‘YOU’ who would be ‘left’ – after being ‘enlightened’ – be ‘outside the dream of being enlightened, Sir’?

      So, there are 2 questions there for you to think about in there.

      One is ‘intellectual’ and Other is ‘practical’. They go hand in hand.

      Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to ramble on.

    2. “Do Not Think You Will Necessarily Be Aware Of Your Own Enlightenment. ”
      Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dogen_132274

      @ zexe6zexe

      Do you think that ‘you’ may ‘what’ Master Dogen talks about,


      ‘outside the dream of being enlightened’ (your words)


      not necessarily aware of your own enlightenment (as Dogen says)

      And therefore,

      the answer to your question to me will be


      zexe6zexe –

      you can keep your ‘name’ (as above) because you (really) ‘have’ No Name.

      unLike the rest of us.

      1. if you must just use ctr+c/ctrl+v…or else call me as you like – i’m tempted to ask if there’s a no name behind the others names, but i know i’m too dumb to see it for real and too cynical to believe it.

        1. zexe6zexe says:
          November 3, 2018 at 01:14

          if you must just use ctr+c/ctrl+v…or else call me as you like – i’m tempted to ask if there’s a no name behind the others names, but i know i’m too dumb to see it for real and too cynical to believe it.


          I have used control C + Control V Together


          @zexe6zexe ——-

          Call me as YOU like — I must First Assume That YOU (the xe guy) who I am writing this answer to —- ONLY — For NO one Else — BUT — SINCE this COMMUNICATION – is For ENTIRE UNiVERSE’s Consumption —- AND has been ALLOWED to BE this WAY

          And People are in All DIRECTIONS and From ALL Sources Writing with or without Names and Multiple Names and Identities and lost and stolen identities and missing identities, and all other sorts of MESS

          Then, I shall First just continue calling YOU XE

          UNTIL I find out Whether OR not XE is EVEN a HUMAN or ROBOT

          Who when IT was DELIVERED

          was Forgotten to be Named

          1. i don’t understand, first you have to assume … what?
            a name is a name, and names are all that exists, and behind a name there is nothing but other names, like “Forgotten to be Named.”
            What is the difference between a human and a robot? the essential difference between a natural machine and a man made machine?
            the only difference I suspect is between me and the universe I am fed with.

  1. You Are Dreaming


    You Are Unenlightened.

    You Are Dreaming


    You Are Awake

    Does This even Make any Sense??

    1. It does. Replace the word ‘dreaming’ with the word ‘imagining’. See how it will make sense then.

      I dislike the use of the word ‘dream’ in the context other than what it is intended: in one’s physical sleep. The double meaning of the word confuses people.

  2. Beautiful. A lot of the confusion comes from too much ‘thinking about thinking’ (dialectical thinking) ofcourse and the fact that the OP is constantly conflating a lot of different Jeds. IMHO (lol) it is far mores simple: ‘Reality’ springs from ‘you’ and not the other way around.

    1. And you spring from Reality. They are one, inseparable. That is the meaning of non-dual perception.

      To see only one side is to deny Reality at large.

      Unfortunately, the dialectical thinking you mentioned – successfully manages to obscure this fact.

      1. so I spring along with my reality which is the same as yours or do we have our own distinct realities?
        yes dialectical thinking-all i can do-and i’m not that smart

        1. @Ze
          Air is air everywhere.

          We were both born out of a human egg and sperm. I guess also ate similar food, i.e. carbohydrates, protein, fat, in whatever form they were served.

          It is highly unlikely you can sustain yourself with water only or, let’s say, hydrochloric acid. It is also improbable that you were born a full adult size.

          I bet you have one heart and two lungs. You are able to speak and write. You have relatives. You most likely went to school, although in the not so distant past this would have been questionable.

          It is also safe to assume that you have 23 pairs of chromosomes, cannot go without sleep for more than a day or two, and have a symmetrical human body shape.

          You have thoughts, like sex and are either male or female anatomically. I bet you were NOT born with four fingers, like the Simpsons, and do NOT have a tail.

          You see the world in stereoscopic colour vision and definitely had both a male and a female who contributed the gene code.

          Above all, you have the mind with all features of a human being: higher psychological functions of the frontal lobe plus our more ancient ‘reptilian’ brain deep in the cortex.

          Your personal inner and social Reality would be different to mine of course.

          1. i have a sense of estrangement. i cannot be one with anything. they say that in the higher spiritual states one feels he’s one with whatever, the world, the other. i’m the opposite, i feel all is outside of me.
            when i look at something i get this suspicion that what i see is just an image, not necessarily backed by something. not necessarily the effect of the light rays reflected by an object into my eyes. do the laws of physics apply in a dream?
            so i get to put this silly questions. you cannot measure the movement of a system from inside the system.

          2. Well, that’s the sense of disagreement with all and sundry that Jed spoke about.

            A human feels ‘one’ with the world when they are on hallucinogenics. They probably see pink elephants too. In a rational sense of course, you are ‘one’ with the rest of the universe. You are made of the same life building blocks as the star dust. But the heightened, elevated states of being that people sometimes experience as ‘one’when your body is flooded with endorphins – cannot be sustained for prolonged periods.

            You use the word ‘dream’ often. What do you mean by that word exactly?

            The laws of physics cannot be broken.

      2. Unfortunately? Nothing has these sides you speak of me lady. Only your (quite excessive) thinking makes it so. Its okay to wear your factoids like they are medals but you’re (literally) not fooling anyone. Not even me.

        1. I wonder if you have applied that same criterion ‘excessive thinking’ to Jed. He did manage to produce 8 books after all, plenty of thinking there.

          Or is this just exclusively for me? I am not an American man, have not written an anonymous book and am not charging money for it. Is this why you feel it is possible to belittle?

          If something does not echo – I usually leave. Consider this instead of hanging around, it’s been 1.5 years, and yet here you are.

          Can’t fool fools beyond what has already been fooled.

          P.S. Reddit JedMcKenna would be more to your liking, T.

      3. There is no awareness that is not-non-dual so whatever meaning you like to ascribe to the term is a conditioned description of some sort. You know that to pick up a pen is to be at war. The very act of continuing to try and win every argument is clouding that which is not even obscured to begin with. There is no way out of the integrated state. To seek it is to suffer it. I like to tussle, just like any healthy dog would. At the same time, and fortunately, it seems pretty obvious that my words and my thinking don’t ‘reveal’ anything and neither do yours.

        1. I do not like the term ‘non dual awareness’. It is conceptual in origin and therefore creates conceptual understanding, but without the experiential component necessary in order to see Reality as is.

          Your thinking is not clear and so cannot reveal anything, T. Perfect knowledge (as per Jed) is conveyed clearly. If it is not understood by someone, there are only two reasons:

          1. It is not expressed clearly, which is a sign that the person who expresses it – is not clear themselves in their mind.

          2. It is expressed clearly, but is above the current level of understanding of another person who reads it.

          As I have been in both situations – I am qualified to draw those distinctions above.

          Your expression generally is geared towards ‘the tussle’ (as you conveyed), and this is how I perceive it as well. Why you want a tussle is unknown to me, as I cannot enter your mind and do not know the intricacies of your personal life experience and the resultant war-like stance.

          Perhaps, this war-like stance is only applicable to your interactions here, or perhaps it is your general conduct in life. You are the only one who knows which is which.

          ‘Put down your inner weapons’ would be my advice to you, applied to everything you end up doing in life. But I understand that you may not take it on board.

  3. I understand now, and wonder if the word ‘imagine’ is replaced with ‘illusion’ – another way of saying the same thing would be

    “Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self.”
    Adi Shankara

    1. ‘Imagine’ and ‘illusion’ are not the same thing. One can imagine something (the process), which will result in creating illusion (the result), i.e. something false and non-existent in one’s mind.

      However, CONSTRUCTIVE imagination can result in creative process. One can imagine the architectural features of a building – and build it later. Or imagine the light particle travelling next to the train platform – and create the relativity theory.

      Etc. etc. It is all rather simple. Contributing to Reality is constructive imagination, adding to it. Contributing to Illusion is destructive imagination, adding to mind suffering.

      1. WE invent — not create — relativity Theories. We Create Models and MODEL and Trucks and Other Objects To Hurt and destroy Objects of Our Own Kind and All Other Kinds.

        1. “‘Imagine’ and ‘illusion’ are not the same thing.” They are not things at all. ALL is illusion. No construction, no ‘process’, no contribution. No matter how beautiful; The cup has no bottom. To see one, is just an individual flavour of pretentiousness

          1. Self-hypnosis may work, but only in the short run. Eventually even this negation is seen as a lie – to self.

            I prefer to call a spade – a spade. Such as this… if they are not ‘things’ then why do you use an example of a cup with no bottom? I can turn your own non-sensical argument against your cup and say ‘There are no cups, all is illusion’.

            And is that TRUE? And how far does this negation take you in terms of Clarity?

            No, really, IS THAT TRUE?

          2. OK, you are saying it was an analogy. But an analogy to what?

            Analogies work only if given in a clear context of the conversation, connected to its content. ‘That which has no bottom cannot ever be a cup.’ is context-less and, therefore, meaningless. Can you see that?

  4. Do NOT imagine A PINK ELEPHANT eating GRASS from A tree UP in The Helicopter :::::: PLEASE

    ‘Imagine’ and ‘illusion’ are not the same thing.

    “Pink Elephant” = Imagination? or Illusion?

    One can imagine something (the process),

    Did a process Take Place?

    which will result in creating illusion (the result),


    Did We Contribute or

    Take Away?

  5. I’ll omit commenting upon every single bit, perhaps not —

    ‘ADDING’ to mind is not Really Correct. We all Really know that. There is No Such thing as Mind and therefore, no possibility of ADDITION to something that is not there in the first place, can possibly exist.

    That answers the End part.

    Constructive and Destructive ARE Building Site Terms

    Not imagination and Illusion Context-Related Terms

    These are also used in Personal Development Arena

    And are Suited There perhaps.

    Contribution — Again is Philanthropic / Personal Development / Whatever Terminology.

    We all have to Find our own Words and See which One We are most comfortable Associating With – until We move to a more Encompassing – and Inclusive One — I guess, that is really the trajectory, if you may, as Mr Rick Jarow says, somewhere in his book — we are on.

    Creation — Is Really — All There is — Really

    Is It not So, Mr Whoever?

    Where is The Later part?

    1. “Contributing to Illusion (imagination) is destructive imagination / Illusion”

      This ONE is possibly the only Correct Statement —- (after amendments).

      Thank YOU

      I had thought that there was a Pearl of Wisdom Hidden There somewhere.

      I shall return Again sometime to Have another Closer Inspection.

      Thank YOU Sir ? / Madam ?

  6. “Well, that’s the sense of disagreement with all and sundry that Jed spoke about.”
    This is pretty much the norm with all ‘seeking’, otherwise no one would bother.
    “A human feels ‘one’ with the world when they are on hallucinogenics…”
    Maybe they are, maybe they are adept at getting their high by the means of the body, manipulating their glans into temporary mass production of endorphins. Yet they promise a point of no return that completely changes the perspective.
    I think that in truth there’s no boundary between my body and the world – what’s the difference between a sensation I get from outside or one I get from inside the body? Only a topographical one. What’s the difference between an idea I get from outside or from someone else and the ideas that pop out in my mind? But there’s also this ‘me’ that is subjected to all these – the point of view. So there are always at least two.

    “You use the word ‘dream’ often. What do you mean by that word exactly?”
    All there is, living, my psychological life. Let’s say there’s this sensorial data I’m getting – I have no way to check it’s source, maybe there is matter behind it, maybe something else. And then there’s the second wave of personal interpretation and reaction. For all these all I could say is that I experience it, but I don’t know how they come about.

    “The laws of physics cannot be broken.”
    Which laws of physics? The ones already discovered, the ones not yet discovered? Maybe they will discover a law that will contradict all previous laws. Are these laws something more than practical theories?
    In a world where nothing matters, since all is illusion, the laws cannot be broken because if there’s a need for breaking them than it means that something does matter – from this point of view, yes, the laws cannot be broken.

    1. You tend to talk about things without any context, as a theoretical supposition. But remember Jed. Context is everything. So..

      “in truth there’s no boundary between my body and the world – what’s the difference between a sensation I get from outside or one I get from inside the body?” First – correct use of terminology. One does not get ‘sensation’ from outside. One gets a sensory stimulus from outside: wind, heat, noise, wetness etc. etc

      1. The body then processes those OUTSIDE sensory stimuli on an internal level as sensation.

      2. One also gets a sensory stimulus from INSIDE: toothache, feeling happy (endorphins), exhaustion, thirst etc., i.e. the body’s internal workings. The body then processes those INSIDE sensory stimuli on an internal level as sensation.

      In other words – both internal and external stimuli are processed internally.

      “What’s the difference between an idea I get from outside or from someone else and the ideas that pop out in my mind?”

      Just a note….. the ideas that pop into your mind are in the majority the influence of the external world and , strictly speaking, are not YOUR ideas. Keep that in mind.

      Next, you can process those external ideas and MAKE them your own. The difference between your own ideas and someone else’s is the same as the difference between grinding, chewing and then swallowing your own food and someone else grinding and chewing the food for you – and you swallowing it. The food is the same, but in the second case – you never learn to use your jaws.

      “Which laws of physics? The ones already discovered, the ones not yet discovered?”

      Which laws… hmm, I thought it is obvious. The ones that make you always come down to Earth when you jump up in the air. Beat that.

      You think, without actually THINKING, just mindless wandering without any focus.

      1. If the context is common knowledge, sure, all is how you say it and how everybody knows it. But context is relative, all context has a preceding context.

        “both internal and external stimuli are processed internally” – yes, what I wanted to say is that all this process (interior) is all there is. common sense says there’s a world behind this process – this is yet to be seen.
        As you said “strictly speaking, (they) are not YOUR ideas” – some of them I call my own although there’s no qualitative difference between the so called personal ones and the others, other then the “assumed geographical origin”. Actually all are personal ones, all are inside.
        Me and the world we’re a closed system

        Strictly speaking, me and the earth, we’re both attracted to one another. I don’t know, maybe it is the earth that keeps falling up to my feet. In a common sense. Beyond that it all falls into the interior process of knowing, with or without a cause.

        “You think, without actually THINKING, just mindless wandering without any focus.” Huh, for a moment I thought you were saying I’m a mindless person..
        If I remember right, this is what they call in zen shikantaza, something like being free from the thoughts. I am that already? Is it the same with you?

        To conclude, the way I see it, enlightened or not, it happens only in the interior process. Some know themselves as being enlightened while others recognize themselves as not enlightened, and the rest of them know themselves as not bothered with it.
        You seem to stop at the common sense context and be happy with it, and you’re probably right to do so, context is all there is, I theoretize: knowledge as a reflection of the world, without parasitic knowledge as a reflection to knowledge (damn, I’m more and more twisted in my thinking).
        I cannot stop there.

        1. Context is not ‘common knowledge’, Ze. We are now coming to
          what Jed once discussed in his third book: an ability to read, REALLY read what is written, correctly and without adding own additional mentation layers.


          “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.”

          Most words have a few MEANINGS. If given without the correct setting – those meanings get confused. Compare:

          “Last night I was dreaming about Paris.”

          1. ‘Dreaming’ as in ‘being asleep, and in my sleep I had visions of Paris.

          2. ‘Dreaming’ as in ‘imagining in my mind that I am in Paris. Not being physically asleep’.

          Without context the first sentence is ambiguous in meaning.

          You tend to use words without actual thought given as to their meanings and their context. This is what I call ‘mindless’.

          If you remember Jed… he absolutely REVERES in the ability of the mind to figure things out and to gain vision as a result. ‘Free from thoughts’ is for those who never went further. They do not want to see Reality as is. They want inner peace, via shutting down. That famous image of the three monkeys comes to mind.

          And are you free from thoughts? I call absolute bullshit on that one. No one can EVER be free from thoughts. Thoughts are the intrinsic part of being human, our advanced, compared to other species, part.

          Regarding ‘common sense says there’s a world behind this process – this is yet to be seen’………… remember ‘chop wood, carry water’? One does not stop at the common sense. One comes BACK to it, without excessive mentation anymore.

          You cannot see the world – yet. I venture this is because you simply do not trust your common sense and are relying on words ABOUT the world, instead of the world teaching you directly.

          Each to their own. But if you write here next time I request that you try the best you can to CONSIDER every word you are writing down – in terms of its meaning and context. Ask yourself if it conveys EXACTLY what you want it to convey to those who will read.

          My best.

Comments are closed.