tsuki

The inner voice is a different thing, because it has no locality. It is not conflated with sight in the same sense as touch. As I look at my hand that touches a keyboard, I can see where I feel. With the inner voice however, there is no such place wherever I look. Or rather - all places speak equally. There is no difference between how I hear my thoughts, regardless of what I see. If that is the case, then why do I (again) locate my thoughts in the space orthogonal to sight? I usually perceive my thoughts as if they were behind my eyes, inside of my skull. Does the inside of my body have any sensations? There is a sensation of movement when I tense my muscles and it is often conflated with sight (I can observe my body moving). There are other feelings however that are not observable via sight. I used to describe them in terms of spaciousness in this thread: Again, these feelings are not conflated with sight in the same sense, as the inner voice. Their intensity is not directional and I recognize them to be inside of my body. There's been a progress in development of these feelings. They are not only located inside of my skull and stop at the throat, but also expand down to the base of my spine. I can shift these to my arms and to my legs. They seem to be conflated with my breath, because when I focus on inhaling and exhaling, I can make these feelings more intense. They can become so intense, that I cannot stop myself from tightening my chest, the back of my neck, and my anus.

Is obviousness a product of the functioning of my body? There is a brain, but the appearance of this 'solution' is not rooted in anything. It just is. It is obvious that the brain creates consciousness. That is, until it is obvious that it is doubtful that it does and I start to question this assumption. This questioning of the assumption is not questioned, however. When I am convinced that it is not obvious at all that the mind creates consciousness, I do not ask questions about whether I should question it or not. I just do. So, obviousness is something prior to body - body is rooted in obviousness. When I try to locate the feeling of I, I usually focus on my sight. Then, everything I look at is not-me, so 'me' is located to the space orthogonal to sight (like touch, hearing, thinking). It is strange how touch is conflated with sight when it comes to the feeling of spaciousness of the body. I can see my hands move to touch my keyboard and I can feel the pressure of the keys. It seems however, that sight and touch are somehow separated, orthogonal. Like they occur in different spaces, even if the sensation of touch is exactly where I would expect it to be given the motion of my hand. Touch is somehow on the inside of my body and sight is external. And yet - I feel the touch in the same field where I see. In space (?).

@who chit What if you recontextualize this neo-advaita saying into Ralston's words like so: there is nothing to do -> you should realize who you are RIGHT NOW! You are IT! You do not become anything else! etc.

So, ever since it came to me that I may be the obviousness of things (their -ness), I found myself in a new perspective. Whereas before, I've been kind of 'stuck' behind the eyes, inside of the body - now, I'm 'out there', intertwined with things that "I" perceive. It is not a new state for me, but the last time I've been this way, it lasted for several hours. Now, it's the second hour and I can't shake it off. As I look around, it seems like the things that "I" look at are somehow accented. Everything seems to 'stick out' from its background (unless I look at the background). It kind of reminds me of videogames where the hud is contextual and objects are highlighted when you hover your crosshair over them (minus the explicit glow).

@winterknight Can you re-phrase this sentence and elaborate on what do you mean by realness? Is seeing through the falsity of the mind related to polar thinking?

All mental categories are false in the absolute sense? For example: If I say that this particular car is a Mercedes, then this is ultimately false because as I look closely and examine into what a car is, it turns to something intangible, without clearly definable boundaries. A 'car' is just an appearance because I am not looking closely enough? The above paragraph relates to my question about Maya, meaning and understanding. Would you agree with the following sentence: "Everything is relative and that in itself is absolute"?

Can you elaborate on that? Can you establish what do you mean by experience (and perhaps say why is it said that enlightenment is not an experience)?

Does it feel like an empty/cloudy/nebulous mind that knows that it knows, but just can't put it to words? It does to me. It's like - certain paths resonate with me and I like the way they put it, but it just doesn't do justice to this feeling so I try and try and try... It sometimes seems like an endless source of creativity. Can you relate? Your question is a perfect answer to what I was asking about. The fact that what I say is not what you read (and vice versa). How do you reconcile with it in your answers? I was also asking about 'who are you talking to?' and you pointed towards Maya. What is the relationship between meaning, understanding and Maya? It may seem like I'm picking your answers apart, but I bear no malicious intent. Given your previous neo-advaita-ish answers, do you mean that thoughts arise by themselves, or do you not experience the inner voice at all? Is the calmness simply the lack of the mental 'hiccup' when we are presented with something unexpected, or is the mind completely dead? In a sense, I can relate to having no thoughts, but only because of not taking the seriously (learning their nature by observation). I am not identified with thoughts that arise. They are not 'me' and 'me' can never be found.

Do you have the feeling of absurdity when honestly trying to put it to words? Like: having the urge to say it clearly, but it always turns to ash in your mouth when you try your best? Are you aware of the fluidity of meaning when you are answering the questions? Are you trying to meet the person that asks the question at their level, or do you simply 'drop the nukes'?

@winterknight What is your reason to talk about enlightenment after you're enlightened? Who are you talking to?

I wouldn't call it a secret, or ultimate truth, but a very powerful tool of emotional mastery. I think that people should learn to appreciate death and find solace in it. Contemplation on the passing nature of things gets emotionally brutal very quickly, but then it leaves you in the state of equanimity and peace (if you are willing to bear it).

There is no need to hasten the inevitable. Maybe that is the real problem that you are trying to masquerade by blaming your lucidity within the dream world? Your logic works by subjecting the 'dream world' perspective to 'real world' perspective and finding it somehow less real. What would happen if you reversed the roles? What if both of those perspectives merge into one, once you are willing to explore both of them?

Are you behaving in a way that would justify sending you to a mental hospital? Why would merging the dream reality with the waking reality make you behave in such a way? Breaking the dream rules gets you woken up and breaking the real rules gets you killed. Don't do that and you're good.

What I noticed is that once I realize that I am within the dream - I start to do things that are unwelcome, breaking the rules. Like teleporting, or telling people that it is just a dream, or having sex with random people, etc. That very quickly wakes me up / 'ejects' me out of the dream. What I was describing was not unwelcome, I resisted the ejection and wanted to see what would happen. I could have woken up easily. My all experiences with lucid dreams were pleasant/meaningful/refreshing. I think that there is nothing to fear, even if what happens seems unusual. The fear you are experiencing seems like a fear of dissolving a very solid boundary between waking and sleeping consciousness. What do you need this barrier for?

What kind of answer are you looking for? A story that explains your situation? Or a consolation? I had a fair share of lucid dreams in my teenage years, but they stopped occurring in my early twenties. Recently I had two lucid dreams that had collapsed and instead of waking up I fell into a space in between dreams. A mishmash of colors, symbols and sounds with the feeling of my gross body being limp. This happened when I forcibly tried to break the rules of the dream (teleporting).

@now is forever You also get 'quite' and 'quiet' mixed up quiet often...

Then I guess that we're having an 'odd argument'.

Are "we" having a conversation?

@Preetom I don't actually think that it is. I have a hunch that you are judging the dual perspective from within the non-dual. The catch is that there is no duality between duality and non-duality.

I know what you're saying. Things, statements, don't feel intuitive until you can visualize them. But you must be able to see that our visualization is so very limited that it cannot possibly be a test of what is legitimate what is not. For example, can you visualize a 4 dimensional sphere? I sure cant. But can i calculate and hence make statements about its surface areas and its volume? I sure can. Physics is mathematics. Rest are just stories, mnemonics if you will, to aid to or to shorten the mathematical calculations. @Serotoninluv @graded24 As a mechanical engineer, I'd say that science's value lies in its predictive power and I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss the use of imagining interpretations. After all, where does the science's funding come from other than people implementing your ideas? How would the inventors do it if there were no tangible results in the material/classical world? Inventors and investors cannot be expected to learn mathematics of quantum mechanics. From my point of view, asking about the meaning of interactions between particles in a theory is similar to asking about what is the emptiness of a cup. There is nothing about the cup that makes it empty - and yet - it is! That is how the intelligence enters the domain of mathematics: through our intervention that describes something that is not there.

@Serotoninluv There is no duality between duality and non-duality. Even when it comes to language.

Why do you think that? Orange is the one that chases after the gross definition of wealth.

It is. Arguing about perspectives in terms of logical reasoning is ultimately pointless because in order to do so, you have 'put' one perspective 'inside' another. This creates paradoxes like you just pointed out and the logical mind gets stuck at the absurdity of the situation. What you have to do instead is to inhabit your opponent's perspective and from its inside show its obfuscated paradoxes (without relying on the perspective you're arguing for). Only then, after a person is open (and mindfucked) enough - you get to show them where you are coming from and how this perspective 'cures'/incorporates the paradoxes you just pointed out in their reasoning. Practically, in order to do that - you have to be higher on the spiral.

One way is to find your way back to the light and the other is to wait until your pupils adjust to the darkness.

Thinking about ultimate rules for life is ultimately misguided. Reality is non-linear. Today's solutions are tomorrow's problems if we stick to them mindlessly. This is what all rules boil down to: the mind finds thinking exhausting, so it tries to solve itself by inventing guidelines.