The observer

Actually, it sounds like a great opportunity for looking inwards. And trust me, it is totally worth it. Even if you merely withdraw without much inquiry, it's still worth it. Also, don't trust this. That's probably just because you've consumed so much and now you're full. Just like with food. You will get hungry again. So, expect that.

@DrewNows I got this feeling too. She sounds like a beginner on the path.

You could try a whole month without the internet, if it doesn't affect your work or study etc..

@Member You have got a long ways to go. And I am SpongeBob

Surprisingly, these latest 3 days of Ramadan has been the most difficult. It's probably due to the heat wave. But I also had my wisdom tooth removed yesterday and I feel ill. I feel extremely weak. I'm tired. And yet, I can't help but go out and walk for at least 2 hours every day. Insight: Don't play God in front of a sufferer. You don't know what they're going through. Pain makes people vulnerable. You should understand and never forget that. It's easy for someone whose health is perfect to just recite wisdom, but your true strength gets revealed in your times of weakness. Respect where other people are at.

Yes. Now just realise that you are saying the same thing that I was saying only in different words. That's how understanding is metaphorical. And that's how the tree exists independent of your awareness/perception.

Of course. But that particular insight is kinda irrelevant to our discussion here. The collapse of all duality means that time is an illusion. Are you directly conscious of consciousness right now? Are you directly conscious of the tree falling right now? These two questions must have the same answer. Otherwise, you're using a double standard.

Because; what is matter? How can I think I am made of something which is not? What is matter, really? This is the core assumption that creates the whole problem. What does science have to do with not being able to walk through walls? Science basically says we can't walk through walls because we can't walk through walls, and then it creates some other ways of saying the same thing... Scientists simply use different ways for expressing the same information. Literally like translating to multiple different languages, no more no less. When you think that reality is made of matter, that right there is a thought creating reality. In reality, there is no such thing as matter. You're imagining it. Unless you can point to it, it doesn't exist except in thought.

Quantum field theory is still a paradigm. It assumes fields of energy, and the proof is, like usual, a bunch of equations. The map is not the territory. Not even 0.0000000000001% of it. The territory is the territory. No thoughts required. All understanding is metaphorical.

You think so? Voila! That's your paradigm. Yes, it is good for materialists, but I am not one. I am not even a non-materialist. I don't subscribe to any particular paradigm. But apparently, you do. That's why I've been having this discussion with you in the first place. I'm not arguing from below, and neither from the same level. I'm arguing rather from above.

Of course. That's the problem with all paradigms. The conclusion is always identical to the assumption. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a valid paradigm. Imagine if I create a paradigm where I assume that the world is made of little SpongeBobs, but instead of eventually finding SpongeBob, I end up finding Patrick laughing at me. My paradigm would then prove itself wrong and therefore it would be invalid and useless. I know it's a silly example, but just to give you an idea. Physics originally assumes that the world is made of particles, without proof, then it goes on dissecting reality based on that assumption. And guess what? Reality turns out to be made of particles! What a surprise! Anyway, you might say that reality actually is made of particles because it works according to certain physical rules, etc... Except that what you'd be missing is that it actually isn't made of particles, even though it seems to be working according to certain rules. To assure that reality is actually made out of particles, you'd need to provide proof for the existence of particles. So far, all the evidence we have is a bunch of equations. But we have never seen, tasted, heard, smelled, or touched a single atom. So, in a sense, atoms do exist if we accept the equations as enough proof. But in another sense, atoms do not exist if we require physical proof (direct perception). Which sense of the two is correct? Neither. There does not necessarily need to be one particular correct view. Views are views. Thoughts are thoughts. Perception is perception. Every extra layer of thoughts we might add upon the actual thing is not the actual thing by nature.

Imagination is absolutely infinite.

@Leo Gura At least this time we are still on topic

And here's exactly the problem; According to your paradigm, if you aren't directly aware of the tree, the tree does not actually exist. So, how can you conclude that your thoughts that are derived from direct awareness are true? After all, they're just thoughts (memories), not the actual thing that you became directly aware of. In other words, since the insight is not present right now in your direct awareness and is only present in your thoughts, how can you say that it is true? You can’t have it both ways. You either have to admit that the tree exists regardless of your direct awareness and then you can say that your insights are true. Or, you can deny that the tree exists and deny your insights as well because all of it is just thoughts and thoughts are not to be trusted.

How do you know that? After all, you're imagining me. So, you're imagining both my perceptions and my thoughts. But let's put that aside for a moment and assume that you are talking about your own experience. Then how do you explain the tree on the ground while all other trees are not? Just because you haven't personally witnessed something doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. It could mean that it happened and it could equally mean that it didn't. Notice that there is thought involved here: 'because I haven't personally witnessed an event, then that means ...... (fill in the blanks)'. Notice that you dismiss thought here but nevertheless allow it to make an explanation for why you can't actually know. You only became aware of the thought that you never became aware of a tree falling, and only became aware of the thought of the thought of a tree falling. See. We could go on like this forever. There is a meta insight here, and you guys are missing it. That's why you're still stuck in the dualistic mind. I hope one day you will get it and break out of your non-materialistic paradigm.

In other words, awareness is perception. Okay, how do you know that perception exists? Do you perceive it? Or do you think about it? What's the difference between thinking about something and perceiving it? Where is the line between thought and awareness? How do you distinguish one from another? But still, it could mean that.

You didn't answer. Only repeated what I said originally. Does the existential bind actually exist or not?

Alright, well, what is awareness? And how do you distinguish it from thought? And what about this extrapolation? Why do you allow the mind to get away with it? Why the double standards? Sure, it's useful to think that it didn't actually fall, but it did actually happen. That's just a story you tell yourself to explain why you can't explain why a tree is on the ground.

You're imagining that existential bind. It doesn't actually exist, right? Or does it?

Care to elaborate?

You really mistake the map for the territory. Maybe that's what enlightenment means after all; Not being able to distinguish between your understanding of reality and reality itself. You just need to open your mind. Open your mind!!!! Also, you should watch Leo's video on his blog. I guess it's called: All understanding is metaphorical. I activate Mirror Force.

Of course, tell that to your friend who gives unexpected slaps on the neck all the time.

Yes. I didn't say it does. But I did say that your paradigm is problematic. The perception of its effects instead of the actual phenomenon.

Yes, it does. I'm sorry that your paradigm doesn't allow this possibility, but the problem is on your paradigm's behalf, not on reality's. Your mind is incapable of grasping that it happens or how it happens, understandably so. But that doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen. Calling it imagination does not mean anything, because all thoughts are imaginary, and questions are thoughts. Therefore, the question itself is imaginary and the conclusion is imaginary too, so what do you expect? You're confusing the map (your thoughts about God) for the territory (God itself). You just need to open your mind. Open your Mind!!!!

@Milos Uzelac My fetisth