Forestluv

External relative to what? What is internal reality? And how do we determine what is external reality and what is internal reality?

Mu

I didn't quite interpret your ideas correctly. I think I have it now. . . That is one way of looking at infinity. I like that imagery. . . That humans have one lens to perceive infinite IS. Humans, donkey's, shrimp, trees, ants etc. would all perceive what IS differently. The tricky part is imagining that all individual possibilities are occurring simultaneously now. Imo, this is getting into an area that transcends language, logic and theoretical constructs. It gets into an ISness that is transcendent to is-ness. . . That is a super juicy area to explore. Imagine three beings together: a sober person, a person tripping on LSD and a dog. We can imagine this as three different relative realities that are simultaneously occurring, yet each being is perceiving one reality. None of the relative realities is "more real" than another. Each reality IS. . . Each reality is a contextualization of infinite ISness. Prior to that contextualization, there are infinite possible contextualizations because it is prior to any contextualization. - yet there is only one relative contextualization that appears relative to an individual. This is commonly called"reality" or an "experience" - and the vast majority of humans assume it is objective. . . . So. . . what is there prior to the contextualization? . . . There is No contextualization prior to contextualization. And there is Every possible contextualization prior to contextualization. There is Nothing/Everything. There is infinite ISness. . . Rather than "prior" we can also use the term "above". Prior is a time orientation and above is a spatial orientation, both suffice. From another approach, we could imagine a quadrillion different beings - humans, animals, plants etc. There are a quadrillion different realities simultaneously occurring. Theoretically, we could imagine an infinite number of beings such that an infinite number of realities are simultaneously occurring. . . From a collective consciousness, an infinite number of realities are occurring, yet each individual consciousness contextualizes as one reality. A great existential playground. This is the type of stuff I like while walking through nature. . .

Cool. That cranks up the fun meter to 11.

"if there are all infinite possibilities". . . .If I understand correctly, you are creating a construct of "all possibilities" as a collection of all individual possibilities. The tricky part arises with an underlying duality of real vs. imagined and an assumption of choice. If all possibilities are happening right now, that means that Everything is happening right now. It's not even a "possibility" anymore. If everything is happening now, it's no longer a possibility - it is actually happening! If Everything is happening right now, what choice is there to be made? It's all happening. To make a choice, we need to create two things to choose from. We could create a new duality of "actual happenings vs. not-actual happenings". Then we would ask "If everything is happening now, do we have free will to choose actual happenings occurring now?". This is a form of real vs. imagined. . . I think a great self inquiry questions are "what is a happening?", "what is real?" and "what is imagined?" "happening right now at this moment". This is also relative. . . Right now relative to what? In absolute Now, there is no past or future to contrast Now with. Everything is Now and Nothing is Now because there is no not-now to contrast Now with.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Who knows? Is your use of "I am" an objective, universal truth? Is it objectively true for a frog? How could we tell if your sense of "I exist" is objectively true for a frog? From my pov, absolute and objective often get conflated. In this context, I would drop the *I* part and just go with AM-ness. Is AM-ness a universal truth? Is AM-ness true for both a human and frog? . . . You betcha.

I would offer a classic psychonaut. . . Timothy Leary. He was an American psychologist in the 1950s-1960s and a pioneer in revealing therapeutic potential of psychedelics. He was also a leader in the counter-culture movement. He lost his tenured faculty position at a University due to his psychedelic use and related teachings. 50 years later we are waking up and psychedelic therapy is gradually becoming mainstream. Rather than losing their job for studying psychedelics, academic scientists are now being given multi-million dollar grants to study psychedelics. My honorable mention would be Kary Mullis. He was a biochemist psychonaut. During a LSD trip in 1983, it was revealed to Kary how to replicate DNA in a test tube. At the time, he was viewed as an eccentric oddball (During another LSD trip Kary was abducted by aliens). Yet his DNA discover revolutionized science and he was awarded the nobel prize in 1993.

@Mikael89 According to Mikael89 maybe what others say is bs. As stated. . . on and on into infinity. . . Trying to grasp relativity is like trying to grasp the wind. . . @Nahm

@Preety_India Stay strong. I've found no contact to be best. . . . The thing about people with narc/bpd traits. . . when they realize they can't get the ex back, they drop them and put their sites on the next one.

@Preety_India Be strong. . . . Based on what you've written about him, he may try to re-engage.

An oldie, but a goodie

"Does absolute mean every other possibility is Happening right now at the same time?" In absolute, how can there be an *other* possibility? *Other* relative to what? "Does absolute mean every other possibility is Happening right now at the same time?" In absolute, how can there be an *other* time? *Other* relative to when?

There is an underlying assumption here that there is an objective, universal truth. According to the Medium they are communicating with an individual spirit. . . so according to the Medium it is true they are communicating with an individual spirit. According to a nondualist, there is no Medium communicating to a separate individual spirit. . . so according to a nondualist it is true there is no Medium communicating to a separate individual spirit. We could add in: According to a scientist. . . According to a mystic. . . According to a Christian. . . According to a philosopher. . . According to a psychonaut. . . According to a metaphysicist. . . According to some dude I met at a concert. . . And on and on and on into infinity. . .

That is a big jump up in consciousness. The next step is to inquire about the *I* that has "zero control of thoughts". Who/what is this *I* that lacks control of thoughts? If *I* am not the thoughts that pop up, then who/what am *I*?

There have already been a few threads on this

We don’t need to realize. If we were at a magic show, it’s fun to be amazed by the magic. We may think “That’s amazing!! I wonder how the magic trick works!!”. That amazement and wonder is great. We don’t need to realize how the trick works. There is actually a price to pay for this realization. . . My apologies. I misinterpreted your intention ?

One way to look at experience is as a contextualization that is occurring now. In this regard, there are no experiences, just contextualizations we call “experiences” that are occurring now. There are an infinite number of contextualizations. Therefore Nothing/Everything is experience. To me, this seems like conflating representation and theory. But yea, you can create any definition of theory you want. It’s all relative. Transcend theory and find out for yourself. That’s the whole point. You cannot transcend theory by theorizing about transcending theory. You have to actually do it. This is all distraction and irrelevant. Cut out the middle men and realize the source for yourself. Rather than wasting time and effort worrying about others’ concepts of god, realize god for yourself. This is infinitesimal. It’s as if you are in room 227 and think it is the Grand Hotel. Unaware it is a room within the Grand Hotel. There is nothing wrong with theory or trying to make sense of things, it can be beautiful. Just like bird chirps can be beautiful. As well, theory can be very practical and useful. Yet to grasp theory is highly contracted. To be attached to theory is a mind wanting to control the narrative. There is expansion available you are not yet conscious of.

A babbling brook is an enlightened teacher.

The term "enlightenment" can be used in so many ways. I think the term can muddy the waters when talking about SD. There is an aspect of awakening/awareness expansion/enlightenment as we evolve up the spiral. There are sudden awakenings, yet also development that takes time and direct experience. As we evolve up the spiral, awareness becomes more and more meta. I think Leo describes this very well in the first hour of his "content and structure" video. For example, someone at a blue stage may have been raised and conditioned in a Christian environment. They attended church each week, they attended a religious school. Their identity and social group is Christian. They are immersed in the content of the religion. They are playing the role of a Christian character in their movie. Of course there are other religions, yet that is within the content of the movie. The person may think "I am Christian and this is the true word of god. That person in Muslim and is worshipping a false god. That person is atheist and lacks morality". This is all within the content of the "religious movie". . . Now this person may go to a University outside of their religious home environment. For the first time, they may be exposed to scientific explanations of evolution and how believing in an anthropomorphic god is irrational. They may take a religious studies course in which examines the structure of all religions and what they all have in common. The person may transcend their immersion of being a Christian and think "Wait a minute. . . If I grew up in the middle east, I'd probably be Muslim. If I grew up in India, I'd probably be Hindu. . . All religions have a common theme - a belief in an external being called god". . . Here, the identification to being a Christian is transcended and a meta awareness appears. This would be the transcendence of blue to orange. . . This person may now think "Wait a minute. . .If these are all just stories, how do I know which one is true? Or if any are true? Maybe they are all irrational is there is no god. Perhaps I should just try to live the best life I can and pursue my own goals without concern about a god". . . Now the person may identify as an atheist and a rational person. . . This sets up a new movie of content. The new movie is playing a character that is rational and knows that religious people are irrational and create gods for their own sense of security and comfort. . . This movie content can also be transcended. The person may realize "Wait a minute. . . isn't atheism a belief? A belief that I have no belief? Isn't rational thinking relative? How decides what is rational or irrational?". . . This can lead to another level of transcendence in which there is awareness that all perspectives are a relative lens. In terms of "faking it" - I would say a person at a transitional stage may have a desire to "fake it" to try and adopt the new transcendent identity. Here, the concept of "embodiment" comes into play. For example, a person may think "All perspectives are relative. I hold no perspective.". . . Yet this person is often arguing/debating about stuff. Here, they are attached/identified to a perspective and arguing for their perspective, yet is unaware of it. This will prevent exploration of perspectives and prevent integration, systems and holism. For example, someone may try and adopt an identity of "I'm color-blind. I don't see racial differences. I've transcended that". Yet the person may still have unconscious biases. The person may resist seeing, understanding and experiencing the perspective of someone from a marginalized group - such as a racial minority or transgender person. . . This person may cognitively believe that they are unbiased, yet have not embodied it.

I found no contact to be helpful to get distance . . Getting over the emotional bonding is the hardest part. It's not like the relationship and person is 100% bad and unhealthy. A portion of it was beautiful and loving - yet a small portion - maybe 10%. Overall, it was really unhealthy and I kept having to remind myself of that. . . I had a supportive friend I would call whenever I missed that small beautiful part of my ex. My friend was happy to remind me of her toxic side. . . The first month can be hard, yet then I found a lot of positives in being single for a while. I started taking care of myself and I grew a lot. I didn't realize how much the unhealthy relationship was holding me back.

@Preety_India There are some people on the forum that can be supportive. Also people in real life. People on the narcissist/bpd spectrum will try to maintain control during a breakup through a various forms of manipulation. When faced with a breakup they might temporarily concede and apologize or say they will change. Or they might get more aggressive. It can be a difficult process, especially when we have some caring feelings for a person. For example, I dated someone on the narcissist/bpd spectrum. She had some childhood abuse that I felt very empathic toward. When I tried to break up with her, she tried playing the victim and expressed how hurt she is, how old trauma is coming up, how she misses me, the good times we shared. This triggered my empathy for her. I really cared about her and really wanted to help her. She used this victim-helper dynamic to keep me close. Then when I kept my distance, she switched to aggressive tactics. Relationships are complex. There are various dynamics. Several people in my life told me she was unhealthy and I should leave her. Yet it's not so simple. For example, I learned a lot from her. It was my first inter-racial relationship and I learned so much about my own privilege, ethnicity and racism. Stuff I could not have learned through a textbook. As well, there was a type of magic between us that no one seemed to understand. When she was able to let go of her narcissist/bpd programming, our spirits connected and danced like I've never experienced. There was a realm of magnificent beauty we shared. This was most prominent with sexual activity. Her personality would dissolve and we would enter these beautiful realms. There were aspects of deep love and intimacy. Afterwards, we layed and listened to music and entered different realms - like a lucid dream. It was love. . . And then the narcissist/bpd programming would return. This was why I had such a hard time leaving. Below the narcissist, there was a beautiful connection, yet she couldn't go there and it was so hard for me to get her there. And I knew a lot of her narcissism was due to her upbringing and unhealthy relationships. She had inner demons and insecurities. I really wanted to help her with this, yet she would always get very defensive and blame everything on me. Or, she would go to the other extreme and say things like "I guess I'm just an awful gf. You should date someone better than me". . . So everything was either 100% my fault or she was 100% worthless. There was no in-between space. There was no space to say "There is an unhealthy dynamic between us. Let's both look at ourselves and our part in things and grow together.". I often asked that we each take 50% responsibility for an issue. Then I started saying I'll take 70% responsibility and asked her to take 30%. Then I offered to take 90%. Eventually, I said I'd take 99% responsibility and asked her for 1%. I asked her to acknowledge one single thing she has done to contribute to our tension. She couldn't do it. When pressed hard, she would collapse and say "You're right. It's all my fault. I'm a terrible gf. You should leave me". . . This is a really unhealthy way to communicate and prevents any growth as a couple. In regards to attraction: I tend to be on the more empathetic side. When I see a woman that is vulnerable and has been through abuse/trauma, it activates my empathic energy. There is an attraction. I open up and try to connect with the person and I often over-share. I want to help the person. Those with narcissistic tendencies can sense this and they will prey on it. At first, everything is pretty innocent. And then the manipulation and gas-lighting slowly appears. Yet it gradual enough that I didn't see the trap forming. The pattern is that I did something wrong, she is upset and it's my fault. As an empath, I feel her discomfort as if it was mine and I want harmony. I can't feel ok when she is distraught. So I accommodate and try to help to restore harmony. Yet the narcissist doesn't want to resolve conflict and harmony. They are oriented toward wanting conflict and dis-harmony. I'm oriented the opposite way. When I was younger, it didn't even cross my mind that someone would actually want conflict and dis-harmony. . . I was in a series of these relationships and eventually went meta. I was able to transcend it and see the dynamics between the two. . . Now, it is super easy for me to spot early on and I don't get involved.

It may seem hard to leave him now, yet it will get much harder if you marry him. Hw would have greater power and control and getting divorced will be much harder and require greater resources - mental, emotional and financial. You mentioned you’ve tried to break up and were unable to. I would seek support if possible - a friend, family or a psychologist/counselor. Someone who gives you support in the healthiest way to break up. After gaining some distance, I would do sone introspection into why I attracted such a person and why I stayed involved. I’ve been in a relationship with a narcissist/bpd and discovered there was a lot going on in me that caused me to get involved and participate in an unhealthy relationship.

Aren’t knowing and not knowing ideas? Are not ideas “things”? And don’t all things collapse into One Everything? In our room of One Everything/Nothing, it doesn’t matter if there is knowing or not knowing. There is One Everything. Thought, no thought, pencil, no pencil, knowing, no knowing, space kangaroo, no space kangaroo. There is no separation. No-thing to know or not know. One Everything.

@Cepzeu ?

If this is realized, what/why are we seeking?