Deconstructing “Reality” - The most comprehensive non-dual meta-analysis

[James123]

10 hours ago, kbone said:

Yes, that might be considered the 'impersonal' aspect, when one can at least dis-identify from the self construct, seeing the mind's movements more objectively. It's definitely higher order than all the self-referential thinking that most are lost in and/or wholly identified with.

The witness can at least laugh at the silliness one used to get so wound up in, and not take the self so seriously. That's always noice.

Definitely, moreover when there is no more voice that's where life begin with / within.

[kbone]

3 hours ago, James123 said:

Definitely, moreover when there is no more voice that's where life begin with / within.

The mind is a tool, not the master sort of dealio. Living in the world, conscious of the mind and its propensities.

Would you say that the voice you're referring to is more akin to the bicameral mind ish, or would you attribute it to some of the mother-father conditioning stuff (i.e., inner critic, self-concept, attachment, trauma)? Or perhaps how the latter shaped the former?

[James123]

28 minutes ago, kbone said:

The mind is a tool, not the master sort of dealio. Living in the world, conscious of the mind and its propensities.

Would you say that the voice you're referring to is more akin to the bicameral mind ish, or would you attribute it to some of the mother-father conditioning stuff (i.e., inner critic, self-concept, attachment, trauma)? Or perhaps how the latter shaped the former?

Mind is an illusion. Thoughts or thinking is an interpretation, not actuality or reality. Only, reality is the now. 

[kbone]

52 minutes ago, James123 said:

Mind is an illusion. Thoughts or thinking is an interpretation, not actuality or reality. Only, reality is the now. 

I might say mind is illusive in that it can only deal in probabilities, as interpretations of what in blazes is actually going on. That we use mind to think about thoughts alludes to 'mind cannot rise above itself' as mentioned to @Anton Rogachevski. Things often begin to go awry, especially when the patterns of thoughts/reason evolved unconsciously throughout life as coping mechanisms, denial strategies, numbing escapes, and the like. 

'Tis the problem with self, which is, existentially speaking, an illusion... always changing, never actually an object, but more of a contextual amalgamation based on memory and assumption. But it's impossible to explain that away.... gotta be SEEN for what it is. That's Ramana's Nan Yar.... gotta SEE it oneself.

But the thoughts/thinking do continue to arise, at least for most. So being conscious of when mind is engaged and remaining aware of its patterns is waking up to its construct: strengths, weaknesses, shenanigans, and all.... is putting it in its place (secondary in the flow of consciousness). Thoughts/words are not the actuality, just at least once removed. That's why hearsay is (at least relatively) more unreliable, as are our conditioned beliefs (lots of hearsay). And when you throw in time/memory, the potential for more delusion and unreliability only increases. That's one of the problems with conflating states of mind (which come and go) with realization or Truth, at least in how I express it.

But yes, existentially speaking, whoever said, "There is no time like the present" was right! 

 

 

Edited June 12 by kbone

[James123]

1 hour ago, kbone said:

the potential for more delusion and unreliability only increases.

It starts with witnessing of the thoughts and not reacting to them. After that the thoughts becomes quite and mind vanishes. Then realization happens that you actually so called never born just attached to word of "birth". Therefore, so called death happens when one thinker or experiencer vanishes. Then experienced and experiencer becomes one, which is the moment.

1 hour ago, kbone said:

But yes, existentially speaking, whoever said, "There is no time like the present" was right! 

 

Yes. Because, now is the Source, which is before so called birth or after so called death. 

[kbone]

4 minutes ago, James123 said:

It starts with witnessing of the thoughts and not reacting to them. After that the thoughts becomes quite and mind vanishes. Then realization happens that you actually so called never born just attached to word of "birth". Therefore, so called death happens when one thinker or experiencer vanishes. Then experienced and experiencer becomes one, which is the moment.

Yes. Because, now is the Source, which is before so called birth or after so called death. 

Yes, the reacting to thoughts typically involves thinking and storytelling, and speerchuality typically involves thinking about/personalized storytelling/analyzing them, etc, potentially creating a bigger mess. Happens a lot. Refraining from 'adding' a concept here, as there doesn't seem to be any need.

So, in essence, what's realized is that there never really is separation between 'experienced and experiencer', thus negating the illusion of any duality. There is actually never really any becoming, per se, just the realization of what always IS, without the layer of thought. That is, duality is all just a trick of the mind, its ignorance of what is already whole, not two, no other.

 

 

[James123]

10 minutes ago, kbone said:

Yes, the reacting to thoughts typically involves thinking and storytelling, and speerchuality typically involves thinking about/personalized storytelling/analyzing them, etc, potentially creating a bigger mess. Happens a lot. Refraining from 'adding' a concept here, as there doesn't seem to be any need.

So, in essence, what's realized is that there never really is separation between 'experienced and experiencer', thus negating the illusion of any duality. There is actually never really any becoming, per se, just the realization of what always IS, without the layer of thought. That is, duality is all just a trick of the mind, its ignorance of what is already whole, not two, no other.

 

 

Definitely.

[kbone]

2 hours ago, James123 said:

Definitely.

Simplicity as the suchness

Edited Thursday at 03:37 PM by kbone

[Breakingthewall]

And then you'll realize that a thought is as real as a universe. All that stuff about, you have to transcend thought, the self is illusory, it doesn't work, friends. Everything is real. There are various levels of reality, infinite levels, and all of them are the same level: the reality .

A synaptic connection is as real as a galaxy, and as infinite as it. We are swimming in the fluid of infinity right now, dear friends, or better, we are that. This, precisely this, is the reality, and it is total. Its depth is unfathomable, and nothing is more real than anything else. All of that is being lost in meaning. Nothing means anything, or everything has infinite meaning, it's exactly the same. Just open the eyes of your mind and see. There are no limits.

Edited Thursday at 04:49 PM by Breakingthewall

[Anton Rogachevski]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Just open the eyes of your mind and see. There are no limits.

When you are in a fog, it seems endless from within, because you can't see the edge. It doesn't mean it's infinite, but it sure looks like it. 

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

A synaptic connection

This is an idea, a thought experientially is pure ineffable sensory data.

Edited Thursday at 04:53 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 hours ago, kbone said:

duality is all just a trick of the mind

Duality is the ability of the sane experience to differentiate your "body" from the "world" in order for you preserve it out there outside the simulation of you mind. It's an evolved mechanism shaped over millions of years, and it functions with a kind of adaptive intelligence.

Hypothetically, if you weren't under the illusion of duality in a war scenario, you wouldn't be able to tell apart your enemy that's about to kill you from yourself, you would just love it all and die in peace.

Edited Thursday at 05:24 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, kbone said:

thus negating the illusion of any duality

Any movement implies duality, since it is relative to another perspective. You could say that this other perspective is the same nature as the first, but it is still other. Without "other," there is no happening, and as we can see, there is relative movement and therefore separation. Infinite perspectives reflecting in infinite dimensions. You could say they are all the same, but in a certain sense, they are "other."

[Anton Rogachevski]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Any movement implies duality

The movement of experience or of physical objects?

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

dimensions

What dimensions? Where are they?

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

separation

Separation and Unity are yet again a dual idea, but reality is neither united nor is it divided. It simply Is.

Edited Thursday at 05:31 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Anton Rogachevski said:

The movement of experience or of physical objects?

Anything that changes. Manifested reality is change. Without change there is not experience, nor conciousness. Conciousness is created by the change. you think that in deep meditation you are in a still, or changeless, state, it is because you do not realize that the now that you are is in ceaseless change and composed of infinite changes. Change is, the absence of change is not. Change is the unlimited reflecting on itself and fluctuating with respect to itself. Since it is unlimited, this occurs, and given its limitlessness, it occurs always and infinitely, and everything unfolds without limits, manifesting what is synchronous with the rest, for the simple reason that what is not synchronous relatively to the rest is not; it is an unmanifested possibility, since it needs to be reflected in order to be. To be is simply to appear; not to be is not to appear. The nature of both is the same: the unlimited. What appears is only an inevitable appearance, given the limitlessness. It is impossible for there to be no non-manifestation because there are no limits; it is inevitable, and its structure is simply what fits together.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Breakingthewall Change is a relative notion. First in order for there to be change you decide the thing you are comparing it to.

Phenomenologically, purely in experience surprisingly there is no change! you can only register it due to your memory's ability to record experience, but if there was no memory no change would register.

Edited Thursday at 05:37 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Breakingthewall Change is a relative notion. First in order for there to be change you decide the thing the you compare it to.

Phenomenologically, purely in experience surprisingly there is no change! you can only register it due to your memory ability to record experience, but if there was no memory no change would register.

Everything that is manifested is change, no change no perception. Just observe the reality. What is changeless is the nature of everything, because it's unlimited. The unlimited can't change because "change" means reflection, appearance. You could say that everything that happens is appearance, or reflection, but same time is the manifestation of the totality. The point is being able to open yourself to your unlimited nature, then see the limited reflection that is always happening. Any perception is change, and any change is reflection 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Breakingthewall "Change" is an idea within experience. I'm afraid you are a bit lost in concepts.

There is change in the physical realm I presume, but that I leave for physicists to study. 

Edited Thursday at 05:47 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Breakingthewall]

28 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Breakingthewall "Change" is an idea within experience. I'm afraid you are a bit lost in concepts.

There is change in the physical realm I presume, but that I leave for physicists to study. 

Sure, in this realm. And some ideas. I'm lost in concepts in any realm . Because concepts are illusory and everything is one. Or if you prefer: spirituality, that's completely wrong. Good luck. 

Edited Thursday at 06:10 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

If I were you, I would stop believing all the spiritual gurus, almost everything that they say is wrong. Maybe the tao te king could be more or less accurate, but no duality is absolutely limited, it drinks from Buddhism that is also limited. Even Huang po is limited. Even Ramana. He's open to the unlimited nature of reality, but his mind is a mess. Being open to the unlimited nature of reality some moments is not difficult. People as Ramana born with a kind of energetic pattern that makes them being in that way, open, without desire, no interest in the world, but that doesn't mean that they understand how the reality is structured

Edited Thursday at 06:15 PM by Breakingthewall

[Anton Rogachevski]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

doesn't mean that they understand how the reality is structured

Nobody does. At least not yet and not completely.