@ArthurG @Steve_Gleason Guys, allow me to throw in a third perspective:
Great discussion! I agree that whichever perspective one takes, one obviously has to resonate with it. Nobody is asking anybody to take a leap of faith.
But at the same time, it sometimes can be extremely rewarding to challenge one’s own current perspective for fun and prospect of better understanding of reality.
During one retreat with Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche he said once something close to: “We are always focusing on the what, but never on the who!” while he was talking of the way we experience the world.
So, here’s a third perspective on “This is a dream” vs. “This is dreamlike”:
When one is reminding oneself that “this is a dream” during the daytime, what can we really mean by that?
A) We could be talking about the “what”, so, about our daytime interactions with objects and - as Arthur noted - realize that during the day, we still “could get hit by a truck” nevertheless, although we try to view it as a dream.
For one minute, let’s leave the question aside if a realized being resting in rigpa will still be hit by the truck or not.
or B) We could be talking about the “who”.
You guys already exchanged views about A) the “what”.
Regarding B), the “who”, the subject-side:
During daytime experience, the experience of “who” is a dream. We can observe it when we wake up slowly in the morning, either slowly transition from a taken-on dream identity to our daytime identity or are in a transitional state (bardo) without having taken-on an identity yet, just being aware of being.
We then slowly start to interact with our surroundings and our daytime identity reifies more and more. We become the father, mother, partner, son, clerk, golf player, etc. as we start to interact during the day.
Our own feeling of identity is a dream that we have reified over years and continue to reify each day by our habits and conventions.
So, the who is not just dreamlike, it really is a dream!
As an example, imagine, you get a knock on the head and you lose all your longterm memory but are not impaired otherwise. You could think, talk, drive a car, etc. but you would not be the father, mother, son, clerk, golf player, etc. because this reification in your mind is gone.
So, who are you then? You obviously still exist, but you don’t identity with all those labels you have come to accept as your identity over the past years.
Identity is a dream, not just dreamlike.
It might make sense to act and interact conventionally when living in a society but we could do so lucidly - knowing that we are essentially free.
Coming back to practicing to view the world from the subject-side as a dream (not dreamlike).
What happens to the world when you - the subject, which is experiencing - is realized to be a dream-identity?
How solid is the anger-identity when one is having a angry argument with someone, when one actually knows that the anger-identity is a dream?
How many “solid” mental things are really inherently solid, that is outside of convention?
The value one denotes to a piece of paper (e.g. a dollar bill)?
The concept of land ownership (where is the physical law out of which ownership is derived? Or, would this ownership exist if there would be no land registry?)
… continue at your own risk
So, is our daytime experience from the subject-vantage point not indeed a dream?
An ariticial sense of dream-identity, which is being adopted by a clear and luminuous mind?
An ongoing dream story of our ego?
Disclaimer: The close enemy to this dzogchen-type path is spiritual bypassing, where one is denying the subjective pain relativities and is not rooted in awareness.