Mellowmarsh

It’s okay to watch the actors playing their parts in the movie, knowing full well those actors are inseparable from the dreamer dreaming them. There’s no watcher without something to watch. The something is the only place the watcher can exist. When there’s no thing showing on the screen, the watcher is also absent, because both the watcher and the watched are inseparably one. In essence, nothing is happening.

So, Nothing knows that. Eh? Isn’t that statement still a form of knowing? As you’ve already pointed out…”The moment you speak, you are already dividing the indivisible” Indivisible implies division. This division is humanly unavoidably created. You never speak of silence by filling it up with words. That’s why animals are truly authentic enlightened beings, unlike human beings who identify and attach to their imagined conceptual language.

Nicely put! 👌

Is it claiming though, or is it just simple understanding. Understanding is the clarity sought, is it not?

Ultimately, understanding causality is the peace that passes all understanding. I love this ➡️ ( Osho on awareness and ecstasy. ) ( Osho suggests that awareness can initially feel like a disturbance, but ultimately leads to a deeper experience of ecstasy. ) How true is that? That’s been my personal experience anyway. 😎

By far, the most valuable and the most useful post/ message I’ve ever read on this forum. 👍🙏 Kudos to you. Loved it.

👌 Nice one. All the one love ❤️ action, dreaming difference where there isn’t any, except in this conception, imagined.

Dreamt experiences are appearing as finite POV’s infinitely for eternity as and through many dreamers. There’s no division between the dreamer and the dream. The dreamer’s only existence is in the dream, that takes on the shape of a finite character infinitely appearing in finite form. So even the many dreamers are illusory finite characters, appearing as though they are real. The dreamer can only know itself upon an awakening from its own dream where recognition and remembrance is triggered that dreaming had been experienced, albeit illusory hallucinations of auditory sound and light.

That would be like asking the rain to stop, or the rainbow to stop appearing. Many authors appear, but there’s only one reader reading writing no one ever writ.

To know there is no other is to simultaneously know other. However, to know you know, some thing must be known, simultaneously creating the duality of knower and known. And yet, known things, know nothing.

One who understands the truth of not-self is no longer entangled in the idea of ‘I’ and ‘mine’. Absolute Solipsism - Leo’s solipsism video is an accurate pointing. Not nonsense.

❤️

You cannot even claim an absolute position on any opinion, because absolute implies relative which like you said is a dual perspective. So even relative ideas about the absolute is absurdism.

@James123 👍 Nice.

I think that once our own personal opinions about understanding the nature of self is fully recognised and understood, then they usually cannot be changed by another, once their mind is made up so to speak. Ultimately it’s the individual that changes it’s own mind, and not another person changing it. I personally have no interest in convincing anyone else about what I understand, and that it is what they should understand too. I never would dream of saying to someone else that their personal understanding shouldn’t be like that. That’s just arrogance. What I do believe is that we’re each and everyone of us capable of arriving at the pure understanding of what self-actualisation is. I also believe that no one has to be convinced by another, nor try to be the convincer to another. As the truth is in all of us, whether we choose to know it or not, it doesn’t actually matter or change the truth.. I can’t be bothered listening to people who tell others they are on the wrong track, or that they ought not to listen to so and so, or that they are still suffering, as if they could possibly know the true mind of what another is able to understand.

Yes I agree. It’s all about listening and then fully understanding what’s being heard. It’s never about the messenger, it’s always about the message, which can appear to be incoherent or it can appear as the most astonishing coherent clarity. Ultimately, it’s about “understanding”, and being able to make up your own mind according to the individual’s acceptance of what is being understood, by means of how it feels for them personally. We have no access to other people’s understandings, so it’s pointless to even dismiss other people’s understandings. We can only know ourself. My belief is that every single one of us is capable of being in absolute perfect alignment with the real truth of how “only being” is able to be recognised by each and every one of us.

I agree.

Those words are still recursive mental activity. In other words (Occupied Emptiness )

If the I (thinker) can imagine itself to be the centre, surely then, it can imagine itself to be the centreless (only being) ? Is this just the absurdity of nonconceptually conceptualising ? If this cannot be spoken about, why bother trying to teach it to others, if it’s already silently known to (only being)? This means every individuated being is not a fool, it’s just a perfect expression of the one and (only being) I mean, how can one thing exist? It would have to be able to reflect itself as twoness? The reflected other would just be a mirage, how can a mirage be taken to be a fool?

Is simply being, fundamentally comparable with silence, or nothingness, or not-knowingness? Like the true being before it’s artificially distorted by a thought, or an idea, or a concept?

While I agree with you in principle. Could “ only being “ just be another way of saying there’s only solipsism? Or only one mind pretending to be many minds?

@James123 Is this solipsistic seeing?