Ziran

It's "engraving". The "something" that's being made from "nothing" is "contrast". Maybe this will help? 1) Reality is a multi-dimensional, multi-layered collection of events. Reality is something which is happening. It's a verb. 2) Each layer is superimposed on all the others like layers of semi-translucent tissue-paper of differing colors. Or another analogy. Each layer co-exists with the others like the differing melodies, harmonies, and rhythms co-exist in a symphony. Or another analogy. Each layer is like the individual aroma from each of the flowers in a bouquet. 3) One of those layers is entirely materialistic. That's the realm of science, facts, here-and-there, before-and-after, hammers, nails, houses, etc... That's the dog-eat-dog world where it feels and looks like everyone is chasing their own tail and making zero progress. Physical bodies, hunger, thirst, relief, creature comforts, **temporal phenomenon** all exist here. In isolation, this realm is entirely nihilistic. 4) Beyond this realm, in nearly perfect opposition are nearly infinite immaterial realms. In these realms, phenomena are timeless. They do not occupy physical space. They do not break down over time. They don't behave like physical phenomena. These events are eternal, ongoing, primordial. Examples: "Loving", "Honesty", "Accounting", "Cooperating", "Nullifying", "Gathering", etc. 5) Law: Within the material realm, opposites attract. Conversely, beyond the material realm, like attracts like. It's correspondence. Like hand-in-glove. 6) Law: Within the material realm, phenomena can be tested. Beyond the material realm, phenomena cannot be tested. While the testing is occurring the phenomena is fully subsumed within the material realm. In QM this is described as "waveform collapse". ( This law was well known by many in the past. It's the reason why in the American birthday custom to "make a wish" it's important that they "don't tell anyone what was wished".

"Living Your Best Life"

"Wisdom is a flowing brook..." Sharing it is delicate. It's like choosing, where, when, and how to cross a stream.

uncomfortable footwear

Love, in its purest form, is "out-reaching". Nothing more, nothing less. It exists at the extreme end of a spectrum opposite Restraint. Restraining <<<>>> Out-Reaching Respect <<<>>> Love In common parlance, when people refer to Love, they're referring to healthy Love which is "nurturing". However, sometimes, as you're observing, Love isn't always good. Love isn't always nurturing. When Love is nurturing it is partnered with Respect/Restraint. Lacking Respect/Restraint Love becomes unhealthy, inappropriate. The classic example of unhealthy love is a parent who loves their child, the rapist, and gives them safe harbor, hiding them from authorities.

That part of the story was added approx 1500 years after the original story was compiled. It happens when an individual "charts a course" ( like a navigator on a ship going on a long voyage ) between what's possible and what's generally considered impossible. Once that's done, let nature take over. The trick is, all is omnipresent and concurrent. Once the path is mapped out, what was previously considered highly-unlikely becomes certainly-true. It's not "knowing". It's a feeling. It's like pressure. Maybe think of it this way? It's not conjuring. It's making a nest for a mother bird who is flying overhead on a long journey. If the nest is good; the mother bird cannot resist. The desired effect is "in the heavens" already. It's hovering, ready to land. Fashion a nest for it. ------------------------------------------------ Best wishes, and be careful. These things are dangerous.

related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefitzat_haderech ETA: An audio class by an academic/believer: LINK

Really interesting read. Ty.

What if there's different types of consciousness? ( One is a narrowing consciousness, and another is expanding consciousness. It's like looking compared to listening. Looking is narrowing. Listening is expanding. Both are happening simultaneously. )

... and in like manner one can become directly conscious of the others helping.

It's, at least, equally plausible that the others helped. Can we agree here?

Lacking consciousness, what is starting the new dream?

Most people lose consciousness immediately following a car crash. And then, others who are conscious, will take the injured and put them back together. If those others were fictional characters, then, when the victim in a crash loses consciousness, no one would come to help them.

You're not ALL alone. In many ways you are, and in many ways you're not. Both are true, simultaneously. To prove that you're not ALL alone: 1) Go for a drive 2) Close your eyes 3) Keep driving with your eyes closed 4) Rather quickly you'll be getting help from others

I am not within myself. ^^ Russell's paradox ^^ Think about it. Can infinity possess itself?

~blinks~ Color me curious

Got it. ~thumbs-up~ With the highest respect, with what authority or knowledge do you **actually** possess in regard to asserting anything about me? It's conjecture, at best. You should know by now, I'm unique. An outlier. Not because I'm better, just because I've had access and hours and hours and hours of practice. At least consider? From a practical perspective? Everytime you tell me about myself, it's a fail. It shuts down the conversation.

Hmm. Correct me? The word choice 'but', disjunct, is not entirely consistent with the rest of what you're writing in this thread and others? 'But' is a disjunct. It excludes. Are you excluded? What if 'but' is replaced with 'and', conjunct? 'And' connects. 'But' disconnects. 'And' includes. It's a minor suggestion. It could be completely wrong. However, I'm curious. "Body talks about, for me. And I am always What I am." How does that feel when reading it back to yourself? Any difference?

Awareness. A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square. Like an impossibly large cone, like an ice cream cone, floating in tbe sky. Looking from one extreme it's a point, and from the other it's completely void. What you're observing, I think, is the limit of awareness. Awareness cannot be aware of itself. It's a reflexive paradox. Deriving it is complicated, but I can try to explain if you want. For those that are curious, look up Russel's paradox.

Pure awareness.

Not void. Pure awareness?

Here's a wiki article which describes "understanding" as contrasted with "knowing". It's useful for rapid deployment and language learning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboxing Here's a Ytube on it: Secular western education and social media discourage understanding in favor of knowing. Knowing is rewarded. Inquiry is not. It's a big problem, world-wide.

Most succinctly, "knowing" is a masculine form of cognition. It's probing, intimate, sharp. It's fact based. In order to "know" one must cross into the other's territory. That's why "knowing" is a euphemism for consumation of nuptials. "Understanding" is a feminine form of cognition. Understanding a matter involves traversing around its perimeter, watching its behavior, without violating its border. "Knowing" is like a closed fist. When something is known, there is no denying it. It's a sort of brute force type of cognition. "Understanding" is like an open palm. The cognition is fluid, and ideas blossom from it. Understanding trumps knowing when considering... the "unseen". It's "void"?

"Be yourself; because, no one else can." Good Morning

the word I hear/see in this regard is "certitude". You'll find it most often among Bahai. ETA: Google Search Link