I sometimes wonder why it is that so many people attach so much importance to the significance of dreams. Not everybody does, of course, but for the many that do, there would seem no shortfall in the ‘fad’ (for ’fad’ is what most of it is in reality) for ’dream interpretation’; from the numerous books written about the subject to the numerous interpretations given by mediums and other such ’authorities’ on things esoteric, or who claim to be knowledgeable on the workings of the subconscious mind where – by popular belief – dreams are said to have their origin.
This is a vastly complex subject, and so I would not even attempt to explore it in detail here (or anywhere else either unless I had cause to be writing another book!). No, my main purpose in raising this question, was to actually question if the common fallacy that dreams derive from the subconscious and must automatically contain some hidden meaning and thereby merit interpretation, or whether indeed many dreams really ‘mean’ anything at all?
Could it be, for example, that this entire fallacy could in itself be erroneous, and that there is really little difference between dreams and the common process of everyday though? If there exists any difference at all, could it only be that many people consider that there IS a difference, and that to capture the fleeting images that thought portrays (or projects) during sleep, is to uncover some ’hidden key’ which in turn might reveal some secret meaning? I am just asking here, that’s all – not attempting to express any authoritative opinion on the subject.
But what I am questioning could, I feel, be of essential importance. I am really only asking why it is that many people accept so blindly this notion of three separate levels of consciousness i.e. the conscious mind, a subconscious one and beyond that, the ‘unconscious one’. In reality, most of us have come to accept this as a matter of ‘fact’; although further examination really reveals (if we are at all truthful) that such a concept is one that we have only acquired in books or have been told by ’experts’; or in turn come down to us by the medium of ‘experts’ who have written books. Freud is perhaps one such typical example.
Personally, while not claiming to have any definite answer to this, I can not accept that this is indeed the case. Why for example, have these three basic levels been accepted as fact as so defined in numerous text books? Could there not be other levels of consciousness that exist which could not even ’fit’ into this standard definition? Indeed, there might exist dozens, if not hundreds, of levels in the human psyche which operate with their own ’intelligence’. Just because these might be hidden (which they are – at least to conscious thought), should not really suggest these are not ’there’. The other point is, perhaps, this important question of ’interpretation’ – which is, understanding thought forms during sleep. This is perhaps all very well, but if most of us are not aware of the processes of thinking (thought) when we are awake, how on earth could we expect to understand these when they take place during sleep? For a dream surely, is only another process of thought; albeit that the images projected (dream images) occur with no ‘thinking conscious mind’ to control them. From a very early age (at least from my involvement in things mystic and esoteric), I came to understand that, in reality, thought or ‘everyday thinking’ is only a vehicle that has its origin solely in an invisible consciousness; but, in our human state, only a fractional part of this full consciousness is actually used and the part that actually is, has become so fragmented by being ‘disconnected’ from the rest, that the manifestation of this in the human scene (‘everyday thinking’), has so often resulted in neurosis and chaos. Could it be that, in general, mankind has become a total slave to this universal thinking process. Many would argue, of course, that this is not the case; that our thoughts are our own and we have an ability to direct these or control them. That may well be partially true’ but it leaves the main possibility both unrealized and subsequently unanswered. For is it ever possible to really ‘control’ thought? To arrest its cycles when we might choose, or change its attributes from say negative aspects to positive ones?There can be no denying that over the centuries many have tried to attempt just this. But there can also be no denying that human thinking remains mostly in an unchanged state. You only have to look around in this violent world with all its turmoil, misery and death to realize that far from being able to change the thinking processes, most people remain totally controlled by them. That is not a question. That remains a simple fact.