8 april - Day of Resurrection

[Mortagon]

Dear friends, Christ is Risen!

8 april  is correct historical, social and mystical date of the Resurrection.

[Ross]

It's well known that mystical religious experiences
are caused by a brain malfunction related to epilepsy.

[Still]

Has zero to do with any date and if you think it does you don't know what the resurrection is or means.

[Still]

Ok so instead of criticizing the various spins on this theme, i will go ahead and actually explain, to the best of my ability, briefly, what the "resurrection" actually is. 

First i would like to point out that the meaning of this teaching has been misunderstood and disputed since it left the mouth of the teacher, couple thousand years ago, despite falkor says that teacher did not exist. 

I could satisfy those who say that teacher did not exist, but not in the way they expect.  Simply, what is/was true for that teacher is true for everyone/everything.

If that teacher did not exist, neither does anybody or anything else...at least anything that can be called a person, place, or thing. 

That teacher would agree: no person, place or thing exists.   

What does exist is a Reality, without form, without place, and without beginning or end or change in between. 

That teacher claimed to be that Reality, disclaiming any identity depending on person, place, or thing. 

The so-called death of that teacher is symbolic, as were all his teachings, of what is happening to the Reality i just mentioned.   

Persons, places, things...anything that can be formed and named as a distinct identity...are symbolic of a DEAD REALITY.   

This DEAD REALITY is the true meaning of "the death of Christ".   

As such, people, even if they are walking around claiming to live and breath, are actually a DEAD CHRIST. 

This is why that teacher referred to people as dead, as in, "let the dead bury the dead".   

It's also why he referred to the REALITY as "life", as in, "I am [the] life". 

The resurrection is referred to something that HAS HAPPENED, but in other context, is anticipated as something that has YET TO HAPPEN. 

"Christ has risen", is an example of a PAST TENSE use of the term. 

The confusion has to do with the perception of TIME. 

Of course, the confusion also has to do with the perception of Christ, which i have already clarified, means the unchanging, formless, eternal REALITY, without beginning or end.  It does not matter what name that REALITY is called.  Within that Reality, IT HAS NO NAME.

If that can be entertained in your intellect, we can move on to the confusion about time.

People are very confused about what TIME really is...what it represents. 

But to make a long story short, time is NO MATCH for the unchanging ETERNITY of REALITY. 

Time is the mortal enemy of eternity, so-to-speak. 

Like knowledge and faith, time and eternity can never really coexist.   

They are very different things, and cannot coexist, anymore than reality and imagination can coexist. 

So the fact is, the eternal reality does dominate and prevail over time. 

This, reality prevails even now, at this moment.

Thus, "Christ is risen". 

Realizing that Christ is risen, however, is the challenge, for any mind still perceiving the change of time, and not the unchanging eternity.

The mind that still perceives time, is still the "dead Christ".   

That mind still seems to need time to realize what reality actually is. 

This is called "self-realization" because the realization of reality is ALWAYS the realization of the SELF. 

This is why Reality is PERSONALIZED, as in, "I am [the] life."

Its the reason i spell Reality, most of the time, with a capital "R". 

It's more of a PRONOUN, but it's not really a PERSON with a personality that is distinct. 

The simplest way to start to realize it is simply to accept that whatever the Reality is, whatever it's nature is, whatever it's characteristics are: it is always a SELF. 

A "dead Christ" is this eternal SELF, which has subjected itself to CHANGE. 

When a SELF, which is LIFE changes, it can then be called something else, such as "DEAD".   

People, places and things actually represent a CHANGED SELF. 

While that SELF insists on this CHANGE, it can be considered DEAD. 

As the late great Don Rickles used to say, are these questions too difficult for you?

Well, these assessments were indeed too difficult for the average Jew waiting for the average Messiah.  And the teachers own small group of hard-core followers was split on this issue.  Some, most, thought the resurrection had to do with people coming out of their graves, "on the last day" (the end of time).  Other's, like Thomas, thought it had something to do with some intangible mind. Thomas was closest to the truth, and something called Christianity evolved along the physical (resurrection) school of thought, going against Thomas.   

Given time, all minds will realize who/what the SELF is...and ACCEPT that Self AS IS...WITHOUT ANY CHANGES. 

THAT, is the "resurrection". 

The resurrection occurs, traditionally speaking, AT THE END OF TIME. 

And this, of course, is because the realization of the SELF is what ends the experience of time, for those minds that perceive it as real.

The resurrection, then, can also be likened to an AWAKENING, in which the death experience was just a DREAM. 

There is only one awakening, and it always awakens to the SELF, as it is, without change.   

I prefer to call that SELF "Christ" and/or "Reality".   

Other teaching traditions might call it something else. 

It has no name, for some very good reasons.   

Names are for people places and things, all of which are different from other people, places and things. 

In Reality, there is not anything that is alive, that is different from any other thing that is alive.   As such, Reality exists in perfect ONENESS, where sameness and equality prevail, totally. 

Such a Reality needs no name, and has no name. 

However, you may have heard the name "Brahma".  This is a term from Eastern teachings, which are confusing until you realize the only legitimate Eastern teaching is that of "advaita".   I will let you google that. 

Long story short, Jesus was more of a successful, indeed THE most successful Eastern guru, TO DATE.  Even more successful than Gautama Buddha.   

To understand Jesus, all you need to do is look to the more modern, SUCCESSFUL, Eastern gurus, being very careful to select them CAREFULLY. 

I can give you a couple of examples if needed, but the point is this:

Jesus was not the Jewish notion of Messiah. 

At best, he had Jewish origins, and learned, either through migration or osmosis, or simple application of a few principles...learned mainly what has been taught in the East.   Upon returning to the region of his roots, he crafted some methods of teaching that might be transferable to Jews, using information they already had.  In teaching terms, in psychological terms, this is called BRIDGING.

So Jesus BRIDGED some teachings he had learned, FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, to the Jews, by whatever means necessary.   Mostly, those means were symbolic, called "parables".   Other times those means could be a direct "TOUCH", transfering knowledge from one enlightened mind, to an as yet endarkened mind.   These...THIS is the basis of MIRACLES. 

I was "touched", that is, my mind was "touched" in 1982, so i speak with some experience, some authority, of these miracles, and what they may feel like. 

As many others have been touched, the legend of the resurrection continues to survive and thrive, despite the best efforts of the vociferous atheists. 

[nottophammer]

lost me.
But then i'd be in the group,humanist. Only as i'd have to be in some group.

[Still]

lost me.
But then i'd be in the group,humanist. Only as i'd have to be in some group.

To me it seems simple enough, maybe because i started with a little help and have been over and it and over it...as if i have trained my mind. 

To clarify any further, i would need to answer specific questions. 

[Still]

Reason for the need for questions is because i don't know what aspect of this explanation is too sketchy to comprehend.  I only know that i have well thought about all aspects of this scenario, and have more details if needed for comprehension.  Belief is another thing. All i ever try to do is transfer comprehension.  Do you get what i'm saying?

I don't want to get into so many details it get's boring.  For example, who wants to talk about how or why "Reality" subjects, or subjected itself to "change"?  How does that translate to a material world full of forms, persons, places and things that are said to be "dead"?

Things like that. 

[Mortagon]

Thanks for the challenge!
In several publications of ABOUT THE WISDOM   link:://mortagonblog.blogspot.bg/  will remove the veil on this secret because:

In Wisdom secrets will not there are, but sacraments will have.

The knowledgeable is more than the sinless.

Wisdom is a Battle of Knowledge against Fear!

The Logos is accomplished God in life, the man - logos, being accomplanying on Earth.

The Resurrection is the spiritual name of the earth evolution!

God is not to be proved, God is to be lived!

[Still]

Good guess. 

The most complex explanations involve the inclusion of change, hence anything that does/can change, into the equation of "reality", which is sometimes bandied about with the term "spiritual". 

I'm trying to explain some very obvious circumstances, to begin with, such as the difference between being awake and asleep at the same time. 

I'm trying to establish, with honest minds, that you can't have both of things that are opposite.  So you can't be awake and asleep at the same time.  You can only have the appearance and experience of the latter, or the experience of the former. 

Likewise, you can't have time and eternity at the same time, which is the same as to say you can't have the unchanging and the changing at the same time...which is what evolution is all about. 

Evolution also makes a deadly assumption about prior conditions. 

If you think the original Reality is imperfect and needs to change through learning, or any other kind of evolution, then you make a very consequential "judgement" about Reality. 

These judgments, about Reality, play out in various scenarios, including evolution of any sort.   

You will find all such explanations extremely complex, and requiring you to rely too much on the "guru" and/or the guru mentality.  You'll never have a thought of your own. 

As complex as my explanation is, i am keeping it simple. 

[Still]

Let's go over this again.  I don't know how to make it more simple. 

Sometimes making another iterative pass at an explanation helps, saying the same thing a different way. 

The "resurrection" is a fancy term for "awakening".   

The opposite of awakening is sleep. 

Sleep and death are the same thing, at least to the Reality i've sometimes called "Christ". 

There's no way i can sugar coat this:

A material world of forms, people, places and things (and every unseen concept that upholds these people, places and things) is caused by a strange kind of 'sleep' in which all these things are dreamed.   

The sleep and the dream are the equivelant to the death of Reality, with a capital R.

Death, when it comes right down to it, is:

Rapid radical change.   

That's it. Period.   

Evolution is a facet of change, which is a kind of CONSTAnT DEATH. 

The only entity that is alive is THAT WHICH CANNOT DIE. 

What does not die, and therefore, what does not change, it the eternal Reality. 

This Reality is ultimately your SELF. 

That SELF experiences a kind of "death" when it assumes it needs to change for some reason. 

When that SELF is "dead", it appears as "the universe", or, what i call a material world of forms, such as stars, galaxies, people, places and things.   

The "material world", can also be called a "closed universe", where it's beginning and ending, and everything in between, are all calculated. 

A fully calculated universe is a lot like "the matrix", or, in the simplest terms, a "dream". 

Such a universe is NOT REAL, and DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY, even though it's entire mission is to affect the change, and therefore the death, of Reality. 

Realizing this, and then experiencing the Reality as one's eternal, unchanging SELF...this is the resurrection.   

Thus, the resurrection has nothing to do with anything physical, of form, of person, place or thing.  It has everything to do with a RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL SELF...FULLY AWAKE. 

The term "awake" is very old, and very Eastern. 

When asked if he was enlightened, Buddha replied, "I am awake".   

In addition, there is a very curious phrase, quoted by the apostle Paul, as if it was in the "scriptures":

"Awake, oh ye, who sleep in Christ"...which is a reference to the resurrection. 

Strangely, it only ever appears in a quote from Paul, and not in any other scriptures.

The Resurrection, with a capital R, is the great awakening, where the entire sleeping mind, is entirely awakened.   

And THAT, is the end of time. 





 

[Still]

Dean Martin, when introducing the late great Don Rickles to a roast, said, "People say Don Rickles is rotten, evil, and vicious.  To those of us who love him, it's the other way around. He's vicious, evil, and rotten."

Of course, Don Rickles always reminded us he was a "Jew".   

Turns out the concept of resurrection has roots in Jewish eschatology, if you can believe easily googled articles like this one:

link:://:.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/

If there were such a thing, most people, including the Jews, would look forward to the restoration of the person, even if you have to come up out of a grave at the end of time. 

By person i mean a body with a personality, what we usually think of as a man or woman. 

If one died as a youth, perhaps one would be resurrected as a youth, same age. 

If one died as old, perhaps one would be resurrected as a youth, young, or younger. 

In any case, it's a hope to survive, relatively intact, as is, except in perfect health, and impervious to any further death scenarios. 

Christianity, as it has evolved, is actually a branch of Judaism, as IT has evolved. 

There's a reason it is often called "Judeo-Christian". 

As such, it has adopted much of Jewish eschatology, having at it's head, a former Pharisee, Paul, formerly Saul, who, until he converted, hunted down people of "the Way" to put them in jail. 

Working from the inside now, the converted Saul/Paul lent his Jewish viewpoints to every doctrine of "the Way" that he touched.   The term for this is to "Judaize".  It was even a pejorative term, used perhaps by Paul himself, to be a "Judaizer", which is to leaven every loaf of doctrinal bread with Jewish yeast.  And yet, Paul was a Judaizer. 

The point is that the Christian concept of resurrection is essentially Jewish, only more glorified, and more explicit. 

My point, if i can make it, is that people will interpret the concept of resurrection according to their motives.   

It's important to note that SURVIVAL is the prime motive for human beings. 

But for teachers like Jesus, who may have USED the Jewish concept of resurrection to make a point, survival, as a human being, was NOT HIS MOTIVE. 

As i've mentioned before, Jesus was essentially a successful Eastern oriented teacher, who BRIDGED Eastern concepts for the learning needs of Jews.   Whatever concepts the Jews had, a good teacher could take those concepts and re-interpret them, to make them useful.  As is, the Jewish concept of resurrection is not useful toward anything that Jesus taught. 

But hopefully its at least obvious that resurrection essentially means RESTORATION to an ORIGINAL CONDITION. 

If we can agree on at least that, we can maybe get somewhere. 

As such, it rules out pure evolution, where there is NO ORIGINAL CONDITION to RETURN to. 

Jesus was all about RETURNING TO SOME ORIGINAL CONDITION, as evidenced by the parable of the Prodigal Son. 

Re-surrection differs only from Re-awakening in that the one speaks mainly of restoration from a state of death, and the other speaks of restoration from a state of sleep. 

To Jesus, these were the same thing. For example, when told a little girl had died, he said, "No, she is only sleeping".   

My apologies for quoting from the official story, as i only believe Jesus said about 5% of the things they said he said...in the mainstream media of the day.

To help make the connection between sleep and death, i would state the obvious that both are STATES OF CHANGE from some NORM.   The normal is alive and awake.  The change is death and sleep. 

As i have stated before, death is actually just RAPID RADICAL CHANGE.   

And what is a dream?

A dream is the RAPID RADICAL CHANGE of NONSENSICAL SCENARIOS. 

Once we can agree on this, we can focus mainly on the concept of CHANGE versus an UNCHANGING ETERNAL REALITY. 

Time, obviously, is the domain of CHANGE.

Time is a weird way of  measuring change. For example, it's noon now because everything is different from what it was an hour ago.   

Where nothing changes, there is no time. 

This is the basic nature of "ETERNITY". 

Evolution, like time, belongs to the domain of CHANGE.  I hope that is obvious. 

In a world of change, the only thing that remains the same is CHANGE! 

As things change, what came before DIES. 

As such, a world of change represents CONSTAnT DEATH. 

Resurrection, the way Jesus would have taught it, is about restoring one's SELF to a prior original condition of CONSTANT LIFE.   

That is simply impossible given a world of change! 

So, a world of change MUST COME TO an END. 

After all, what is an ending?

An ending is a CHANGE from a beginning! 

If change rules, then anything with a beginning also has an ending.   

If time begins, then time also ends. 

Change forces this on anything that changes. 

As such, a world of change is TEMPORARY...like SLEEP. 

If sleep has a beginning, it also has an ending. 

If death has a beginning, and it does, then it also has an ending.

We have often heard that birth is the other side of death's door, in reference, perhaps, to "re-incarnation". 

Per my own definition, yes, birth is a kind of death, if it is RAPID RADICAL CHANGE. 

What most Jews and Christians really believe in, with their version of resurrections, is a RE-INCARNATION.   

But what is re-incarnation?  Obviously, it is the CONTINUATION OF CHANGE.  What lives changes to dead.  What is dead changes back to alive.   And yet, nothing really dies because CHANGE REMAINS THE SAME. 

By change i mean this:

Change is the transformation of something into something else that is actually DIFFERENT from what it was before.   

The key concept is the constant manufacturing of DIFFERENCES.   

What is change?

Change is essentially a concept that is DIFFERENT from the ETERNAL CONSTANT of REALITY.

The bottom line is this:

All change changes REALITY to something that is DIFFERENT. 

Resurrection is about restoring the unchanging nature of reality to one's SELF. 

[Still]

Up until now, i have not mentioned the specific event in history that is most associated with the concept of resurrection: the resurrection of Jesus. 

This is because the resurrection of Jesus was not, and is not, the actual resurrection. 

However, if you use it as a parable, it does teach everything i've taught, if you can read between the lines.   

Personally, i believe the historical event happened, as much as any historical event can happen (technically, history does not exist).   

Theoretically, this would qualify me to be a "Christian", as they make that historical event an article of required faith, almost exclusively.   

However, i do not call myself a Christian, and Christians will be quick to reject me, once they hear my explanation of what the historical event really means. 

The reason it must be used as a parable, is because it IS a parable, taught by a teacher who used parables ALL THE TIME. 

However, when a parable is taught with actions, instead of just words, it's called a PARODY. 

Both the crucifixion and the "resurrection" were PARODIES.   

Were they historical events? Sure.  I'll accept that. 

Were they salvific in and of themselves? No.  I do not accept that. 

Salvific means they somehow "save" "you" from some condition. 

My argument is this:  Parables are only of value to the extent you UNDERSTAND them, and APPLY the principles they SUGGEST and/or ADVISE.

This is why you can never really make a statement like, "I believe the bible", because if there is even one parable in the bible, you can't believe it.

Why?

Because parables are not anything to believe.  Parables are unbelievable stories IN NEED OF UNDERSTANDING. 

So there's this PARODY, the resurrection of Jesus, in need of understanding, if it is going to be of any use toward the improvement of our condition. 

What is our condition?

Referencing my last lesson, our condition is one of CONSTANT CHANGE. 

If constant change is the same as CONSTANT DEATH, then our condition is "DEAD". 

My argument is this: 

If you can understand these basic ideas, and apply some principles they advise, you may, sooner than later, come upon the power to change your circumstances, rapidly, and radically. 

As explained before, death is RAPID RADICAL CHANGE. 

As such, resurrection from the dead also qualifies as RAPID RADICAL ChANGE.

An understanding, backed by knowledge, is sufficient to CHANGE THE LAWS THAT GOVERN THE DOMAIN OF CHANGE. 

I have the understanding, but don't yet regard myself as having the DIRECT KNOWLEDGE sufficient to:

A.) Endure crucifixion WITHOUT ANY PAIN
B.) Walk out of a tomb after three days left for "dead". 

However, i do regard these feats as possible and able to be DEMONSTRATED by anyone with the understanding BACKED BY THE KNOWLEDGE.   

I regard Jesus to have been both understanding, and KNOWING enough to demonstrate some mastery over the LAWS OF ChaNGE. 

Pain is an aspect of the LAW of CHANGE. 

Not one Christian will tell you that Jesus' crucifixion included a lesson about the MASTERY OVER PAIN.

Since i'm NOT a Christian, it's OK for me to reveal, perhaps for the first time you've ever heard about it, that Jesus FELT NO PAIN.   

Why pain goes with the territory of change, maybe i can explain that later. 

But if you can believe it, there is a connection between change, a sense of "guilt", and pain.

Bottom line, if you do not feel guilty, you cannot feel pain. 

And there is really only one way to not feel guilty. 

To not feel guilty, you must KNOW you are INNOCENT. 

It's the direct KNOWLEDGE that contains the POWER, so-to-speak.   

To BE innocent, one must KNOW the true SELF, as it is, as it was, as it will be forever. 

As i've stated before, the true SELF is the ORIGINAL REALITY, as it is, as it was, as it will be forever. 

The SELF and the REALITY are the same. 

As explained before, the Reality DOES NOT ChANGE!

Change, then, REPRESENTS SELF-DESTRUCTION. 

I repeat:

Change is self-sabotage. 

As a parody, the crucifixion of Jesus represents SELF-SABOTAGE, which is the VOLUNTARY DESTRUCTION OF ONE'S SELF. 

Not one Christian will tell you what i'm about to tell you: 

The beginning of "this world", that is, the beginning of a WORLD OF ChANGE, that is, the beginning of TIME, is an ACT OF SELF DESTRUCTION, which DESTROYS THE REALITY That CAME BEFORE "THE BEGINNING". 

I repeat: Anything with a beginning is a "sin" against SELF.   

This is why the very first sentence in "the bible" is misleading, if it implies the beginning of this world was a "good" thing. 

It is also a lie, if you can understand that: Nothing with a beginning actually exists, as it CONTRADICTS REALITY. 

Here then, is the basis of innocence, the end of change, and the end of pain. 

If you KNOW this world DOES NOT EXIST, there is NOTHING TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT, and therefore, NO MORE PAIN. 

Both guilt and pain are aspects of self-sabotage. 

Anyone who can demonstrate a lack of guilt and pain IS ALREADY RESURRECTED (or very near to), if you interpret resurrection to mean: The restoration of your ORIGINAL KNOWLEDGE OF SELF.

As such, Jesus' own crucifixion and resurrection scenarios, as told through parody, were demonstrations of the power of the knowledge of the SELF. 

The crucifixion of Jesus represents the STATUS QUO. 

The status quo is a world with a beginning that is constantly changing.

As a constantly changing world represents constant death, it is DANGEROUS to any SELF!

The resurrection of Jesus represents DESTINY. 

Anything that changes is DESTINED to be RESTORED TO THE UNCHANGING REALITY. 

The last change will be on the "LAST DAY", once you understand that DAYS and CHANGE are synonymous.

No matter what day you are resurrected, it will always be your LAST DAY. 

And that is why resurrection has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY DATE. 

It has to do with your state of mind, and how that state of mind DOMINATES TIME. 

[Still]

Pardon me for reiterating what i just said in the prior post, in case you missed it. 

Maybe i did not make it clear.

To summarize:



The crucifixion of Jesus was a parody of the beginning of a changing world. 

The burial of Jesus was a parody of the status quo (the state of a changing world).

The resurrection of Jesus was a parody of the end of a changing world.

Before the beginning of a changing world was the actual world of reality. 

After the end of a changing world will be the actual world of reality.

Reality does not change. 

Since reality does not change, it is what's real now.   

If this is true, then a changing world is not real.

What is not real does not exist.

If a world of change did exist, it would represent the destruction of what does not change.

What does not change is reality. 

If reality can be destroyed by change, then so can the self be destroyed by change, because:

The self and reality are the same thing. 

The destruction of the self is associated with guilty feelings, pain and suffering. 

The restoration of the destroyed self to the original self is what the resurrection is all about.

A world of change is a kind of "self". 

A world of change is full of the appearance of many selves.

Despite the appearance, there is still only one self, appearing as many.

A world of change is a destroyed self.

A world of change is a crucified, suffering self.

A world of change is a dead self. 

The restoration of the true, original self is the end of a world of change. 

Days and change mean the same thing.

Therefore, the "resurrection" occurs on the "last day". 

[DoctorSudoku]

Personally, i believe the historical event happened, as much as any historical event can happen (technically, history does not exist).   

Still,
If you have some time, can you please elaborate on the part that I have highlighted in red?

[Still]

Sure Doctor,

  History is an aspect of time, and time is an aspect of change.   

  I have been challenging the reality of anything that changes. 

  Stated briefly, if it changes, it is not real. 

  I say, if it is not real, it does not exist.   

  I stay consistent with that analysis in all my essays.

I also stay consistent with that in my day to day hearing and speaking.   For years, i have never called anything that changes "real", or "reality".  If i have, it has not been serious, as if i was making a serious statement or analysis.  Usually just joking.  And when anybody uses the term "real" or "reality" to describe anything that changes, i take note as it tries to enter my mind and brainwash me.  Before it can get in, i frisk it down and take it's weapons away.   

Getting back to history, there are two levels of denial.

The first level of denial says that time is not linear anyway.

Rather, all possible events that can take place, happen in a single moment. 

One way to think of it is to think of an apple. 

Imagine all the scenarios, all the dramas, all that happens within time is somehow contained within the apple. 

Now, imagine a worm, worming it's way through the apple. 

The apple is not moving. Rather, the worm is moving through the apple. 

Similarly, the experience of one event happening after the other, one change after the other...is driven by the state of mind of the observer.

  The observer is driven to see, and so experience, what is around the next corner. 

  Exchange the apple for the concept of a hologram.   

  link:s://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

  In brief, time is a very deceptive concept. 

  It's not what it seems to be. 

  It is very much a trick of a mind that is passively condoning self-deception. 

  At best, it could be a blip on the radar of eternity, disappearing as fast as it appeared. 

 

  Ok, so the second level of denial would say that the hologram itself does not exist. 

  One way of stating total denial is to say, "It never happened".   

  This is hard to accept, if one is worming one's way through time. 

  But it's easier to understand if one can discern the difference between imagination and reality. 

  Of what significance is imagination?

  In a world built upon imagination, it has great significance.

  But in a world based on reality, it has no significance. 

  When one is dreaming, it's seems significant.

  Upon awakening, dreams are hardly remembered. 


  So that's what i mean, technically, history does not exist.  I feel it's important to occasionally invoke the second level of denial, to keep perspective, and stay consistent in any philosophical reasoning.  It's a way to stay alert, so as to wake up sooner than later.